So you want to be in a monogamous relationship with your partner. Well, all the information out there from people, history, and research say you’re in for an uphill battle. Our culture & society even though we are constantly getting wedding invites people don’t believe in its principle as it would appear with infidelity, “shacking up”, common law marriages, divorce…so I took a look at it to gain some more insight.

I have found monogamy to be a nurtured behavior that men & women have failed to agree on in the 21^st century. And with all that we have going on I can see why it’s such a place of contention.

First, the Bible is tossed in every now & then to highlight several women to one man theory; King Solomon’s harem as proof of monogamy being an unnatural way of living especially for the male species a constant throwback. The open acceptance and practice of open marriages while more couples silently conceding relationships to infidelity as normal expected behavior for men yet still shameful for women. Now, men have longed supported this view, however more women are beginning to agree that it is unnatural for both men and women to expect monogamy. Is this evolved thinking for women since they have been indoctrinated into accepting that it was unnatural for men to be monogamous and to think that men could be faithful was silly naïveté? Or is this a way to matchup and make up for lost time of sitting on the sidelines suppressing the desire to step out on the marriage too?

So let’s take a look at our society’s perspective on men & women.

The most important place I think we need to look at is in the homes; parenting doctrines. Society and culture have not only influenced the food, clothing trends, and music but it has also influenced the way we raise our children to view sex, relationships and love. Today, you still hear parents setting different rules for their little boys and girls. Very early in life we learn what boys can do and girls cannot do; usually boys are excused and applauded for having several girlfriends while girls are punished or discouraged for the same behavior. Boys are told to sow their wild oats as rites of passage into manhood before they get married to the old ball & chain while girls are told to stay virgins, be a lady in waiting for a prince charming to love and respect her for being pure.

Is this true for all men or women, of course not! However, the dominant discourse in our society creates different rules for men & women with very different consequences supported by the reinforcement of media messages, music, history, religion, and even our current laws.

Monogamy is the place and stand a person acquires by choice; an unwritten contract that states you will resist engaging in sex with another person in spite of lustful desires (which are natural to have), but instead will be satisfied with one person for the rest of your life forever & ever AMEN!

So, can we change the view of monogamy if we start raising our boys and girls with similar practices of laws of engagement in relationships with more equity? If we make our young men more accountable and discourage promiscuity as acceptable behavior as we do in our young women can we change our society into one that can uphold monogamy for both men & women? Do we really want the rules of society to change for men & women? or  Do we find comfort in the sexual inequalities and maschismo love?

For more topics on relationship questions, life, love, sex and more follow Sophie Lherisse, Life & Relationship Coach at @sophielherisse on twitter.

I have a student who got a D first quarter. He was a little sassy and a little resistant to work at times. He didn’t get some of his assignments turned in, and while he wasn’t “bad” in class, he wasn’t giving 100%. So basically, he acted like a teenager.

So last quarter, this student was being disruptive, so I asked him to spend a few minutes in our “step one” desk. We have a school-wide behavior plan, and this is basically a desk removed from other students facing the wall where students can chill and refocus before returning to class in a few minutes. When I went to ask him to rejoin the class, I found a mean message scribbled onto the desk. I waited until the next day to confront him about it because he still seemed a little mad at me. When I confronted him, he denied it, but I had him clean it anyhow. I told him I didn’t want to say he was lying but that it was hard to trust him because he was the only student who sat in that desk the day before.

Well, a few weeks later, through my super sleuth abilities, I learned that another student wrote on the desk, not the one I accused. I felt bad about this. Sure the student I accused was a little rude and showed me some attitude, but I falsely accused him. So I decided to apologize. It’s not really fun to apologize to kids. It feels embarrassing and even kind of scary, but it was the right thing to do. So I did it.

In the past two weeks, this student has been amazing. He is focused, super attentive, diligent with his work, and studious. The quality of his answers has improved as have his input into partner discussions. On the way out of class the other day I praised him for being so on fire in class. He said “I decided I didn’t like my grade last quarter. I’m going to do better.” And I just updated my grades today. He has an A.

Now, maybe these events are totally unrelated, but I doubt it. I don’t mean to undermine this student’s new found motivation, but if he was mad at me and thought I was unfair, I don’t think he’d have changed so much so quickly. So, bottom line: we are all human. We make mistakes. But when we do with our kids, I think we ought to own up to it, show some humility, and apologize. It shows students we respect them, and it makes a big difference in their progress.

In the September 10 blog I suggested that every president since FDR has made some positive contribution to our country. Then I proceeded to build a list of some of the accomplishments of each of those presidents. The blog didn’t attract much attention, and received no comments of feedback.

As I watched the final presidential debate last night, and then looked over the bi-partisan belligerence of the responses on Facebook, I once again was saddened at the rigidly narrow and intolerant view of some of the American people.

I understand that my Facebook friendships constitute a very small portion of the American population, and that they are very heavily weighted to the right in comparison to the general population. But the intolerance is fully represented across the liberal/conservative spectrum represented by my FB friends.

Not much openness is expressed except, I’m proud to note, among my own family members. Perhaps that’s because family love trumps political partisanism. If so, we should all recognize that we are members of the human family, and that love should always take precedence over political positions. We can differ; but love will moderate our differences.

With that kind of moderation, it becomes possible to begin to see at least some good in everyone. Even the most heinous criminal may have some good qualities. Jesus saw that in the thief who was crucified beside him.

Sooooooooo…

…I found myself asking, what if we could combine the best qualities of each of the presidents? What kind of president would we produce? What follows is my first stab at the challenge. I invite readers’ participation in building the “ideal” president based on the best qualities of all the presidents in our lifetimes. Remember: you’ve/we’ve done enough complaining and criticizing of all the presidents. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to build the ideal president, using the best qualities of each president in our lifetime.

For me, at least at the start, the ideal president would have…

…the transparent honesty and plainspoken qualities of Harry Truman,

…the balanced perspective of Dwight Eisenhower,

…the analytical abilities and universal charisma of John Kennedy,

…the negotiation abilities and commitment to social justice of Lyndon Johnson,

…the strong, uncompromising international leadership of Richard Nixon,

…the healing presence of Gerald Ford,

…the moral character and peacemaking diplomacy of Jimmy Carter,

…the visionary love of America represented by Ronald Reagan,

…the humanitarian leadership of George H. W. Bush,

…the economic leadership of Bill Clinton,

…the concern for advancing science as demonstrated by George W. Bush,

…the idealistic and inclusive perspective of Barak Obama.

In almost every case I considered the quality of courage; for most presidents exhibited courage in the face of a variety of adversarial situations, both foreign and domestic, tangible and ideological.

I also could have listed a concern for health care reform as a good quality of several presidents, including Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, I understand and accept that a substantial part of the American population believes that health care should not be in the purview of government at all.

And no, the ideal president would not have to walk on water!

Obviously, there will be some who will find different—possibly contradictory—strengths in one president or another, or even in all. But the exercise is self-justifying. Who knows, it might even lead to a “kinder, gentler” appraisal of those who dare to lead. I know the exercise has mitigated some of my contempt, and has raised the level of appreciation in some cases. That’s the whole intention behind the effort.

Remember: the purpose is to find the best quality of each president. Let me know how your own evaluations turn out.

Bullying is about power. It is repetitive hurtful behavior that communicates very clearly, “I have the power and you don’t.” It happens between children between adults and…this one can be harder to acknowledge, it happens between adults and children. October is anti-bullying month. There are lots of articles this month about bullying that happens at school – this one is about the kind of bullying that is adult initiated. It is one (not the only) place where our children learn how to bully.

One of the women I coach has a high level position at a large technology company. She shared with me a story of a director that is considered “wonderful” but frequently humiliates (in public) the people who report to him. His idea apparently is that you’ll be so afraid to make a mistake you won’t make one. My client noticed that everyone is too afraid of him to ask to be treated respectfully. There is a code of silence around his awful treatment of the people who work for him. They are afraid that if they speak up, they will lose their job. Sound familiar?

You may also notice that some athletic coaches bully their team. They yell, scream and publicly humiliate the athletes. Many of us accept this. We show it on TV. And we think that it is legitimate because it is “the way” to get these very talented athletes to do what they are supposed to do.

Adults use power in this way to change someone’s behavior by humiliating them or scaring them. There is an implicit assumption that the person is not already doing the best they can at the moment, that somehow they don’t care and that fear and shame will be helpful motivators. This is craziness. We know from brain science that when we are threatened our ability to learn new things shuts down. Athletes and talented technology workers are there because they want to be there. They dream of being on the “A” team, and are working hard to improve performance. Is the bullying really helping?

And, as a culture we buy into this. There is little public outrage at the very public bullying we (and our children) see on television. What are our children learning?

As adults and as parents let’s be better “bystanders.” Let’s acknowledge that scaring and humiliating other human beings is not the way we want to treat each other.

• Speak up when you witness an adult hurting or scaring another person (adult or child).
• Talk to your children about whether they learn better when they are being yelled at or shamed, or when someone notices their strengths and gives them a suggestion about how to make an improvement. Use what you see on television or on the ball field as material for reflection and learning.
• Be a proactive bystander. If your child’s coach uses the “traditional” shame tactics, have the courage to have a conversation with him or her (privately). Know that s/he is not intentionally trying to hurt children, but is not familiar with the skills to teach without hurting.
• Be a learner. Our culture is powerful. If you catch yourself in moments of frustration reverting to threats or shame with your partner or children, be compassionate with yourself: do your best to repair the mistake, ask for help, take a parenting workshop, or find other ways to get more effective tools.

Sound Discipline is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Your donations make a big difference and help us produce newsletters like this. You can donate at our website www.SoundDiscipline.org

It’s also interesting that President Truman actually tried to convince General Eisenhower to run for President on the Democratic ticket! Indeed, as President, Eisenhower promoted many of the same causes Democrats promote today. He opposed lowering taxes if the loss of revenue might lead toward budget imbalances! Nor was he in favor of cutting spending by sacrificing programs designed to meet the needs of the poor. He even promoted (unsuccessfully) Fair Housing legislation and health care reform—all this in the 1950’s as a Republican! Eisenhower enjoyed high approval ratings and presided over some of the most prosperous and productive times in American history.

In comparison, President Kennedy, a Democrat, favored many principles championed by Republicans today (e.g., lowering taxes to encourage economic growth.)

In his first two years in office, President Kennedy worked with a House with 88 more Democrats than Republicans, and a Senate with a majority of nine Democrats. Still, he had significant challenges getting much of his “New Frontier” through congress. His greatest difficulties were more regional than party-oriented.

The blatant, rigid partisanism we see today didn’t begin to show its face until the 1968 Presidential election campaign. As is made clear in the biographies of virtually every president since Roosevelt, the press has always liked to played “Let’s You and Him Fight” with politicians, and television extended the reach of the press.

The election of 1968 was the first campaign with extensive, “up close and personal” TV coverage. Politics always had been volatile, even producing duels to the death in early America. Until 1968, however, political adversarialism had been pretty much contained within the caucuses and smoke filled rooms of the active participants in the political machinery.

But with the TV coverage of the troubled 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago in, the cat was out of the bag. The general public was exposed, and the contagion, as we say today, “went viral”.

During President Nixon’s administration, partisan animosity peaked in the Watergate scandal. Democrats were merciless in their prosecution of the matter, and subsequent Republican obsession for revenge finally found expression in the equally merciless prosecution of President Clinton.

The die was cast. Even as late as President Carter’s administration there remained a modicum of give-and-take within both parties. Today, however, an overwhelming majority of House and/or Senate bills are resolved along rigid party lines. It’s a sad commentary that issues are evaluated, not on their merits, but rather on the basis of whether the resolution was introduced by a Democrat or a Republican.

Today, party trumps the good of the country—almost every time! Indeed, for good or for ill, more than one major player in today’s Republican Party has stated that the main goal of their party is to ensure that Barak Obama is a one-term president.

We need honest, open debate in our political processes: the kind whose resolution depends upon the soundness of logic and the conviction of credible reasoning. We need the kind of debate whose conclusion is not foregone prior to its introduction, simply in the basis of its partisan source of origination.

Instead, today’s debate is characterized by half-truth, manipulations of truth and outright fabrication. “Fact Checkers” are working overtime, and debate is more a study in character assassination than in logic or reasoning. The foregone conclusion of the majority party will prevail, regardless of the merits of applicable arguments.

Today, party trumps truth—almost every time!

Little Rock News Anchor (KTHV) Craig O’Neill hit the proverbial nail on the head last night with his commentary:

“What is the number one factor that’ll determine your vote this time?

“The economy? Afghanistan? Middle East? Education?

“What if I told you it was none of the above?

“Yep.

“The number one factor in this and any election is … your parents.

“That’s right.

“According to research detailed in the book Partisan Hearts and Minds by Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler, most Americans inherit their political party from their parents.

“They also form party affiliations in early adulthood. It says we choose our political party like we do religious denominations or social organizations, because of the people most like us, and not because of issues.

“Their research shows we choose the party first and we’ll bend the issue to fit that choice.

“This is hard for people to digest.

“We all want to believe we are issue driven, but look at Arkansas.

“It has taken all of a generation and a half to produce a Republican state.

“Even when it went Reagan, it was still controlled by Democrats.
Not now.

“If a candidate goes out on a limb, you’ll support him if he’s in the family tree.”

Sad; but my own observation tends to support the conclusion drawn by Green, Palmquist and Schickler.

Again, Party trumps the good of the country—almost every time.

I know: the rebuttal is that (my party) is what is best for the country. I don’t buy it. I’m a Democrat, and am growing increasingly liberal (according to popular definitions of the liberal/conservative dichotomy); however, I have no illusion that Democrats have all the answers (sometimes they don’t seem to have any of the answers!), or that the Republicans have none of them. There’s too much personal and regional self-interest at stake, and no one is beyond “looking out for #1”. Nobody is “right” all the time, and nobody is “wrong” all the time. We need to listen to each other, because sometimes even (the other party) may have a good idea!

I just don’t buy that any party or any ideology is perfect, or that it is more important than the overall good of the country. I sincerely believe that any vote cast, on any issue, blindly and solely on the basis of party is probably short-changing the nation as a whole.

I would like to request that you approach this short text with an open mind regardless of your own religious beliefs. All of what I propose is neither absolute truth nor is it a purposefully misleading manifestation. I would however like to impart to you a small portion of my opinion on the sensitive matter of religious tolerance and its necessity in our society. After all it is imperative that as creatures that are able to think and understand for ourselves, we must take responsibility in encouraging the exchange of knowledge. It is only when we pertain adequate knowledge about the unknown or the other, that we not only find self-affirmation in our own beliefs but a respect for the beliefs of others.

The concept of religious tolerance is difficult precisely because of the arbitrary concept of tolerance. The word ‘tolerate’ bears connotations of endurance rather than complete acceptance. The father of a Christian household may hold no protestations concerning the arrival of a new Muslim family who have moved into the house next door, but by limiting interactions to a courteous smile and hello each time they happen to pass each other by is passive tolerance. This is a common problem when applied in the wider context of human behaviour not only within individual societies but also on a global scale. You must know who the other is; know what they stand for and what they don’t, know what it is that makes them essentially different from you, but also what you have in common. To determine your interactions with others based on superficial knowledge not only leaves the other vulnerable to discrimination but can also be the cause of unnecessary conflict. It is this nervous distance which evokes fear and maintains the negative stereotypes that governments exploit to justify and generate public support for wars. So I propose to you this; do not be hasty in dismissing the religions of others. Do your research. As humans we must possess humility by acknowledging that we do not know everything. Do not allow yourself to be a victim of your ignorance because others will interpret this as a sign of uncertainty in your own beliefs, because it is difficult to be open to others when you lack confidence in yourself.

So why is it important that we respect all religions? Firstly I would like you to consider the complexity of the human species. We vary in colour, height, weight, eye colour, strength, beliefs, socio-political positions, and so on. To write this off as a miraculous scientific accident seems to be, in my perspective, more far-fetched than it being the power of God. The majority of religions explain this diversity as being the will of God himself. That He has intentionally created a mix in humanity so that we may learn from one another. Individuals and groups become consumed in the misguided presumption that they are morally superior, and as we have witnessed historically, this triggers the oppression of others. Before we base conflicts with others on religious grounds we must not forget that to respect human diversity is to respect the will of God.

You and I are in a relationship which I value and want to keep. We are also two separate persons with our own individual values and needs. So that we will better know and understand what each of us values and needs, let us always be open and honest in our communication. When you are experiencing a problem in your life, I will try to listen with genuine acceptance and understanding in order to help you find your own solutions rather than imposing mine.  And I want you to be a listener for me when I need to find solutions to my problems. At those times when your behavior interferes with what I must do to get my own needs met, I will tell you openly and honestly how your behavior affects me, trusting that you respect my needs and feelings enough to try to change the behavior that is unacceptable to me.  Also, whenever some behavior of mine is unacceptable to you, I hope you will tell me openly and honestly so I can try to change my behavior. And when we experience conflicts in our relationship, let us agree to resolve each conflict without either of us resorting to the use of power to win at the expense of the other’s losing.  I respect your needs, but I also must respect my own.  So let us always strive to search for a solution that will be acceptable to both of us.  Your needs will be met, and so will mine–neither will lose, both will win. In this way, you can continue to develop as a person through satisfying your needs, and so can I. Thus, ours can be a healthy relationship in which both of us can strive to become what we are capable of being. And we can continue to relate to each other with mutual respect, love and peace.” via A Credo for Your Relationships with Others – Gordon Training International.

This is a work-worthy goal but I am sooooooooo far away from this…

All persons have values whether they realize it or not. Values are so crucial to a person’s existence. They are the stuff which life is made up of, the things we count as really important and what we’ll be known for when we are no longer alive. They determine the footprints we leave behind for our family, communities to either follow or remember us for. Values are those unseen factors and belief systems that mould us into who we are; for they are the key factors that determine what decisions we take, what we do or refuse to do when people are there to observe us and when they are not. Values give backbone to character and create a stable personality as the person grows .Values are also imbibed from our associations with others, community and events.

My personal values, which have been instilled in me both by my parents and my environment, include love and mutual respect, humility, faith, loyalty, self development, integrity and determination. .

Over the years it has been observed that our communal values have deteriorated. Nevertheless, some values my community upholds include love, respect, humility, and integrity. We seem to have lost other beautiful values such as respect for other people’s property, with the result that it has grown worse from what was commonly called “misappropriation of funds” to “embezzlement”. The latest language in this decline, especially in the political arena is “looting of public funds.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

International Day of Non-Violence – 2nd October

On June 15, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly declared Oct. 2 of each year to be “International Day of Non-Violence” to commemorate the birthday of Mahatma Ghandi. Ghandi’s name is recognized around the world as synonymous with peace, and this day strives to further his philosophy through education and public awareness.

Most would agree that Mahatma Ghandi was a great and inspirational human being. Here are some interesting facts about his life that you may not have known:

* Ghandi spoke English with an Irish accent.

* Ghandi lived on a diet of fruit, goat’s milk and olive oil.

* Ghandi was heavily influenced by Henry David Thoreau, specifically when it came to his beliefs on Civil Disobedience.

* Ghandi never visited the U.S.

The purpose of this article is to look at nationalism in the Pakistani perspective. The State and its laws are not in focus.

A General Look

The prevalent Pakistani nationalism, as taught in schools, takes its roots in considering the Muslims of Indian Subcontinent as a unique people. It is essentially a form of religious nationalism. The flag has some religious symbolism (not the crescent and the star but the colors). One-third (sometimes one-fourth) part of the flag represents the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan but that does not even things out. The slogan “What’s the meaning of Pakistan? No god but Allah” is upheld by the textbooks. Conservative Pakistani nationalism is such that it does not hold all Pakistanis in equality. That being a fact, a number of non-Muslims also took part in Pakistan Movement. Unlike the state, some Pakistanis keep religion out of nationalism.

A Comparative Look

Many examples can be found even in contemporary world that can somewhat aptly justify such a type of nationalism because, after all, it’s the will of the people. The first example is Israel. Zionism, the ideology behind Israel, is more about ethnicity than religion. This article “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism” might provide some justifications for conservative Pakistani nationalism. Parallels can be drawn between the status of the Kurd in Turkey and that of non-Muslims in Pakistan. The flags of UK and its countries have religious symbolism, though it has little relevance in present times.

That being said, there are many more nations which do not disregard the smaller groups. A study of different models of nationalism can be helpful. Wikipedia: Varieties of nationalism.

A Digging of Graves

The debate about the vision of Jinnah, the founder of this nation, has been going on for a quite a time now. It’s effect on Pakistani nationalism holds value because many Pakistanis highly revere the founding fathers. The second most important figure for conservative Pakistani nationalists is Iqbal, a well known Muslim nationalist. Some regard Jinnah as a having a secular vision for Pakistan and many don’t. I recently came upon the resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal from 1950 and he considered Jinnah’s dream to have been abused. What cannot be denied is that Pakistan was created for the liberation of the a persecuted minority i.e. Muslims.

A Conclusion

Many of the founding fathers of the US were racists. The US still honors them today, but those of their ideas have been thrown into the trash can. On the other hand, some, after years of hardships have thrown the old personages into the trash can. If we are to progress, one of these is bound to happen.
We need to espouse a different model of nationalism. We must define “Pakistaniyat” in such a way that no subject of the of the Pakistani State feels left out. The sense of collectivism should be based on many factors. Individualistic ideals need to be respected. Minds of many will set to peace. The laws and the society will follow.

Gandhi  Jayanti Celebration-2nd Octomber

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on 2 October 1869 at Porbandar in Gujarat. Gandhiji is called as Mahatma and Bapu by all Indians. He was officially honored as the Father of the Nation and his birthday is celebrated as Gandhi jayanti. The celebration and observance of the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi is to commemorate his sacrifices, morals and his teachings. His ethics and his principles on non-violence have become an inspiration of light for the world.

Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader. His tradition are still appreciated and commonly used for solving conflicts and finding nonviolent result to troubles. Some of the significant events used to take place every year although the festival is celebrated as a quiet affair. The following line makes to understand or comprehend to know all about celebrating Gandhi Jayanti.

Prayer meetings are held at Raj Ghat, New Delhi, and the memorial where Mahatma Gandhi was cremated. The Prime Minister and President of India attend a prayer services. Other dignitaries are also present. Everybody present pays their respect to the great leader. As Gandhi is respected by all the religions, various religious and political leaders they all will come and pay their tribute to Gandhi. Religious poetry and prayers from different holy books are also read out. Moreover, Gandhis favorite devotional song Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram is sung in the memory of the deceived.

On Gandhi Jayanti, all schools and offices are closed throughout the nation to celebrate the occasion. In most schools, the instance is celebrated by performing various works, such as planting new saplings, distributing medicines to the poor and needy, cleaning public areas and pledging to educate poor people. 2nd October has also been affirmed as the International Day of Non-Violence by the United Nations General Assembly on 15th June, 2007. Hence, on this day, liquor is neither sold nor consumed throughout India in Gandhijis honor. Some sincere followers of Gandhiji also refrain from consuming meat on this day.

On the day of Gandhi Jayanthi many of the colleges and communities used to arrange various competitions such as essay writing and painting. Many of these competitions were conducted on the regards of glorifying peace, violence and the teachings of the great Gandhi.

Up until this post, I was giggling, smirking, and had an occasional ga-faw! You’re writing voice is simply hilarious. Well, insightful, descriptive, full of witty observation, but mostly just hilarious. Then, this post. (sad face here)
Great comedy usually comes from great pain…and this post was the pain nugget from which all your comic observations are born. You have hit the nail on the head.
You love your sister and you are terrified of what she is doing to her life. You are not a bitter, bad person. You are a loving sister who can see the truth, the forest for the trees if you will; and you are confused and horrified all in one swoop.
There is no reason to be happy here, and yet you are forced by social convention to lift your glass, smile and say happy fairy tale crap that simple is not true in THIS relationship.
So many bad couplings are more about the need to have the image of marriage, and less about real love, mutual respect and the merging of same values, ideals, and lifestyles; especially when one or both partners are not emotionally well and possibley getting long in the tooth.
Your sister is in for a rough ride. She will be able to continue to delude herself and turn a blind eye to his boorish ways for a while, but time will wear her down, the chardonnay will stop working and she will come face to face with the mirror and see that SHE has married badly, and now SHE has to get out of it. Every embarrassing social moment, every awkward dinner with the check on the table for 30 minutes, each time he disrespects one of her beloved family members’ homes, she will die a little. She will become less and less tolerant of it all, and soon, she will call a spade a spade, the veiled insults will give way to name calling and tearful screaming matches will become the norm. Finally, when she can take it no more, if she has the strength and a little money saved, she will file the divorce papers citing irreconcilable differences, (translation: he is such an awful, terrible, cheap, rude boorish nightmare) and she will be devastated but free.
What is truly sad is that while you can see it now, and I’m sure your Mom can see it now, and really anyone who reads this can see it now, she cannot. She is blinded by an insane urge to have all that she fantasizes will make her happy.
Emotionally ill women with Cinderella complexes make up much of our over 40 never been married and about to marry badly demographic and yes, they will cling madly to ANYONE who MIGHT offer that elusive wedding ring and will ignore all negative pieces of information to keep their delusions alive.
Another arm of pathological lying is pathological self delusion and that is in full bloom right now. She does not see him as the rude, cheap, ill mannered jerk who has obviously picked her (a desperate low maintenance woman), because he will not have to work hard or do much and certainly will not have to work at changing his “marriage” behavior. He already drove one woman to drink, (so to speak), and has not had to change his ways one bit. That wife simply crawled into the bottle, lost her mind and soul to addiction and checked out. Animals in pain, caught in a trap of misery will chew off a limb to escape and yes, even leave their children behind if the trap is bad enough. That is frightening. Emotionally ill women occasionally do not have the “stuff” to man up and leave a bad marriage and they find other escapes, and those escapes are tragic and can be deadly. You are worried for your sister.
Why do some woman forge ahead in the face of so many obstacles? Because they are emotionally Ill, starved for love, desperate for companionship, a family, a home, and all the things that define what it means to be a woman in our society. After searching for decades for water(love) in the desert of relationships, emotionally ill women come up empty and thirsty time and time again. The defeated attitude, and the loneliness that comes with it will eventually lead us to drinking any cup of sand offered, no matter how gitty.
The sand…then proceeds to suck the life out of us, until we are so thirsty, so sad, so defeated and beaten…that we give up on life entirely.
You are not a bitter woman or jealous sister. You are a smart woman, who can see all of this disaster in front of your emotionally ill sister, and you are terrified for her.

Of course, all families that see a loved one taking a bad step in marriage say the same thing. “I’m glad he makes her happy.” “I’m happy if you’re happy”, and my favorite, “maybe it will be okay, maybe he will change”.
(commence eye rolling sequence here)
I love that you can maintain a sense of humor about it, and find the comic nuggets that are Hollywood sitcom worthy, but I do get that underneath it all is a concerned loving sister, and a good person.
Mwah!

I gotta wear shades.

I’ve been looking for just the right topic to write about recently for the blog.  It’s gotten tough for me to think about anything other than the kids’ school and sports activities, Devon’s incessant calendaring, Hamlet lesson planning for the at-risk high schoolers that I teach, and getting up at 4:30 a.m. to get ready for my long days.  I am so thankful for this busy life that I have, especially in light of the fact that last year at this time I was laying around on my futon in the living room, attempting to recover from my latest chemo treatment and feeling sorry for myself.  I couldn’t even get out of bed to see my kids or poop properly on the loo.

And then I read the latest feature article in our local Reno News and Review this evening.  I was totally wowed.

Here’s the article link by Brad Bynum.  Don’t forget to come back and read what I have to say.  You will get sucked in, so be warned.

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/life-in-transition/content?oid=7870290

I’m so glad you’re back.  Let me preface this little novella by stating that I am in favor of people being who they are meant to be at their core, not who others say they should be based on religion, tradition or norms, just so that we can feel comfortable.  I am writing from a place of bias and I don’t care if people agree with me or not.  I didn’t used to think this “liberal” way, and so I totally understand the other side of things.

But that other side is simply wrong.  I won’t even argue about it.

Devon always knew he was gay, but he wasn’t willing to admit it or be at peace about it.  I will not speak for him, however.  It is his story and I played a small part in it, ultimately.  Thank the Maker that I did.  Otherwise I wouldn’t be who I am today.

Kris stated it eloquently:  “But I will say that, as a person, I’d say that we’re all always growing, always becoming more of who we are. In that sense, I think that everyone is in transition.”

Transitioning

Devon did this.  He transitioned.  Not anatomically, because that’s not his beef and most people would never think he was a gay man if they met him for the first time.  I definitely didn’t accept that he is gay at first and it took me nearly a year and a half to get there.  Just like Kris’ parents, I felt that there must be some explanation—some way to fix things.  I tried everything I could.  I quoted scripture.  I got others involved who I thought could help change our situation.  I used the kids against Devon.  I tried to love him so much that he wouldn’t have any other choice but to desire to be with me in spite of his true core.

Essentially, I was in denial.

The day I accepted him and the inevitable death of our marriage and subsequent divorce, was the day that I accepted his “You’re the only woman I’ve ever truly loved” as a compliment.  He used to say this phrase after his Big Reveal to me.  I would get all butt hurt and take it as a slap in the face.  The day I accepted this as truth was the very day that I decided that it was okay to let go.  It just clicked and no amount of scriptural prodding or Christian guilt trip could deter me from my place of peace.

So, what is your hang-up?  Did your spouse cheat on you or lie to you in some major way?  Yeah.  That friggin’ sucks.  It may be the most painful type of betrayal one can go through.  But does denying your situation by being bitter, angry and spiteful help you transition into happiness and fulfillment in life?  Nope.  Not a chance.  It will only make you a bitter, angry and spiteful person in the future about almost anything.

I was going down that road.  I can relate.

Accepting what is and accepting what was… as real and true… is the only positive thing you can do for yourself.  I don’t know how to tell you to accomplish this seemly insurmountable task, but you’ll know it when it happens.  The only baby step you can take in getting to that place is expecting that it will one day happen.  You may have more crap to feel, more words to say, more counseling needed, but if you expect that you will come out on the other side a better and happier person, you will.  I guarantee it.

‘Cuz if you’re looking for the positive stuff to show up despite your circumstances, you’ll eventually see it, and it will be glorious.  Then you’ll know that you’re transitioning into the person you are meant to be at your core.

Just like Kris.  Just like Devon.  Just like me.  Just like we hope our children will eventually become.

Blessings to you, Kris, and to anyone who finds yourself having to face the toughest thing you’ve ever dealt with in this short life.  I am proud of you, Devon, for coming out to me, even if it was forced upon you in some way due to your choices and me trying to change you.

I wouldn’t be who I am today at my core without my past.

My future looks bright.  So does yours, even if you can’t see it yet.

Blessings for your Future,

Emily Reese

I pay for 45 minutes but she gives me an hour because we have So Much To Do. She tells me about her grandchildren playing at the fair, about her trip to the family farm, about her most revered music teacher, whose teacher’s teacher was friends with Debussy himself. I’m memorizing his Clair de Lune. She sits across the room and listens as I play by feel.

I record my hours practicing, but regardless I always play Very Well and she gives me an A, or sometimes an A- if I make a lot of mistakes. Just once I got a B, and you can imagine how I felt.

I get a sticker on every piece I finish. It’s silly and juvenile and I love it: Santas for Christmas (but of course, no secular stickers on pieces that “pertain to the birth of Jesus”), pumpkins for Halloween, and old composer stickers that need to be licked on the back, for those special pieces by Mozart or Chopin or Liszt.

Her Chihuahua begs for a scratch under the neck at every opportunity he can get. I beg for attention too: tell me I’m wonderful. Praise my timing, my accuracy, my performance. I love to delight her. I listen intentfully to everything she says. I say silly things to make her laugh. We gush over pieces and composers and arrangements that strike something within us.

I love having someone who gets it. I can barely put into words my love for a piece half the time, but I don’t have to. She just knows, in the way I smile and my eyes light up, in the way I give everything through my hands. She feels it too.

I like her because she reminds me of my mom. We have that understanding, that connection. Religion and politics aside, we have the same values. We strive to be good people, and we expect no less of others. We have mutual respect. And we love to delight each other.

May Your relation grow in love and abound..!!!!!… Good luck…

Back a long time ago when you decided to have kids you probably imagined talking to them, playing with them, taking care of them when they were sick. You probably imagined that when you talked to them that they would respond. You’d be interested in them – and they’d be interested in you.

Funny how it doesn’t always work that way. Your teen might want you now (especially when you are busy) and then, when you do want to spend time with her, she is busy texting or is just plain non-communicative.

Some hints:
• Remember back to when you were a teen. Can you remember thinking that your parents didn’t “get it?”
• Know teen development. Many teens begin to figure out who they are by figuring out who they are not. They often start with the people they know best. You. As your teen works hard at being “not you” it’s easy to take it personally. Relax. The values he grew up with are still inside being sorted out. Teens move to independence before settling into interdependence.
• Limit your battles by looking long-term. (A messy room does not mean she’ll be a slob forever.)
• Create regular routines. Family dinners are particularly helpful. Leave the TV off. Listen to what is important to your teen.
• Work and play together. Make sure that the jobs in your family are shared. As teens mature they may get tired of the regular “set the table” kind of job and want more of a challenge. Solve that problem together. Short after dinner games are another way to connect.
• Be willing to say no. It is not your job to keep your teen happy but rather to be clear about your values. Arguing or negotiating is generally not helpful. Try, “I’m not comfortable with that.” Teens respect parents who respect themselves.
• QTIP. Quit taking it personally. The look. The snarl. The silence. It is not about you, it is about them. Being a teen is hard.
• Get support. Being the parent of a teen can be lonely. You may be ashamed of your teens behavior and/or feel alone. Join with a group of other parents either to share or to build your skills. Check out the Sound Discipline website events calendar for upcoming talks, workshops and classes.

Join us for a short parenting talk: Beyond Breakfast & Bedtime Battles: 5 Tips for Peace at Home
Sound Discipline is hosting the evening to share, celebrate and support our work in schools. We hope you can join us September 26th at the Phinney Center. 6:30 PM Suggested donation $10. It helps us if you register in advance.

Sound Discipline is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Photo Credit: GoodnCrazy

Today’s Question:  My husband and I are very different. I am much more conservative financially, he loves to spend money. We argue about parenting, where to go on vacation, even how to arrange the furniture in the living room. His trump card is always, “As head of our home, I get the final decision.” Is that true? Do I just need to always give in or submit to his way because he’s the man? What if his decision is absolutely wrong? Then what?

Answer:  I often hear this kind of thinking when working with couples in marriage counseling. I also was taught it myself in my premarital counseling. In a nutshell, the teaching goes something like this. Couples have conflict. That is inevitable. However, when there is an impasse and there is no resolution, as the head of the home or leader, the husband gets the final say. Let’s look to see if this thinking is truly what God designed marriage to be like.

If we look at the original couple, Adam and Eve, before the Fall, there was a mutuality to their relationship. In Genesis 1:26-27, God made human beings in his image (both male and female) and gave them both the responsibility to reign over the animals and take care of the earth. Eve was equal with Adam not beneath him.

After they both sinned, part of the curse was that their relationship would change. God told them, “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” Genesis 3:16. The desire for power and control over another person would now characterize marriages instead of the mutuality that God originally intended.

That’s been the story ever since. However, when Christ came, he broke the curse of the law. Paul says, “But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law” (Galatians 3:13).

We see, throughout Paul’s writing, a breaking of this “power over people” mentality. He writes, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:38). He also applies this to restoring the mutuality of marriage. He tells husband’s to love their wives as Christ loved the church and wives to submit to their husband’s out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18,19). It’s both/and, not either/or.

When Paul talks about the sexual relationship, he also describes this mutual giving and mutual giving-up of rights and power. He says, “The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs and the wife should fulfill her husband’s sexual needs. The wife givesauthority over her body to her husband and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:3,4).

Notice the one spouse gives authority to the other; no one takes authority over the other. When mutuality in marriage is practiced, power struggles may be tempting, but never endorsed or validated as biblical. One does not take someone’s choice away from them. When mutuality is practiced and valued, a husband or wife often gives in, but they give in willingly, not under compulsion or fear.

I have been married over 35 years. There has never been a time in my marriage where my husband had to have a “final” say. When you practice mutual submission and mutual respect, you listen to each other’s perspective. You defer when someone is wiser than you are in a certain area, you compromise, and you work together to come up with a solution that you both can live with.

Finally, let’s look at this question from one other perspective and that is the angle of authority. Too often we have misunderstood the authority of a position, whether it be husband, pastor or elder, to be synonymous with getting one’s own way. In other words, if I am the head of my home (authority), then I get the final say, which means I get my way.

But the bible is very clear that authority does not imply entitlement to one’s own way. God’s Word gives specific instructions to those in authority on how to handle that responsibility. Throughout the Old Testament, God often rebuked the leaders of Israel for their self-centered, deceitful and abusive shepherding of God’s flock (See, for example, Deuteronomy 13; Jeremiah 23:1-4; Ezekiel 34:2-4).

Biblically, God put husbands as the head over their wives (Ephesians 5:23), but that does not put wives at the feet of their husbands. Women and wives are depicted in the Gospel as equal partners and persons to love, not objects to use or property to own. Biblical headship is modeled by Christ’s gentle leadership and loving self-sacrifice. Husbands are cautioned not to be harsh with their wives and not to mistreat them, or their prayers will be hindered (Colossians 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7). No leader is entitled to make selfish demands, order people around or hurt them when they fail.

Jesus cautions those in positions of authority–parents, husbands, pastors and elders–not to misuse those God-ordained positions for self-centered purposes. These roles are given to us by God to humbly serve the individuals or groups that have been entrusted to our care, not to have our egos stroked or to get our own way (Mark 10:42-45).

So what would these biblical principles look like in making family decisions? Let’s say you want to go to the ocean for vacation, your husband prefers the mountains. Traditionally the final say has meant that he gets to go to the mountains and you simply have to submit.

But authentic biblical headship defined by Christ is servanthood. Now we have an entirely different picture. How can your husband best serve your needs? If he is to love you as Christ loves the church and sacrifice himself for that, what would the “final decision” look like?

I think it would sound more like, “Honey, if you need sand and water for vacation this year, let’s do it.” Likewise, the wife might say, “If it’s that important to you that you get away from the crowds at the beach, I’m fine with that.”

When this kind of mutual submission, mutual love and mutual respect are practiced in a marital relationship, there is no need for a “final say”.

The other is to understand the same thing in reverse…to still care for and respect individuals who believe or think something differently, and to understand that they also should have the right and privilege to speak out about whatever it is they want to.

I’ve gotten a lot better about not getting upset (not always, but mostly, I think) when people disagree with me…even harshly.  But it was a long time in coming.  I used to keep silent a lot of the time unless I knew that my audience was an agreeable one.  Not so anymore, in case you haven’t noticed.   I still argue my side too much and too long sometimes, but even that, I’ve gotten better about.  Mostly, I don’t get offended or hurt anymore, if people get angry at me for my views/beliefs.  I still do sometimes, but I’ve improved a lot on that I think.

We’re a mixed culture of people across this globe.  We see things through different eyes…eyes that have seen a lot of various things, and from different perspectives.  I think understanding that is the first key to mutually respecting everyone with their differences, regardless of what they are.

In the end, I admit that I like getting along with everyone…or I ‘would’ like that.  But I also know it’s not possible unless I do refrain from telling people what I think…unless I strive to just be a ‘people pleaser’. But living that way…that’s dishonest.  Withholding the truth of what I believe or think is not fair to myself or to others.  If you know who I am, you can either accept or reject that based on the facts.  If I hold back so that you will like, or approve of me, that’s just silly.

Any thoughts?

I told him I felt the same way—and sometimes even worse! In retrospect I recognize some fear behind my blogs. And in a few cases they seemed outright apocalyptic! That gave me pause.

I’m not afraid of what Barak Obama—or Mitt Romeny—might do. Our constitution provides three checks and balances to guard against any single element of government asserting too much power.

First, we have a congress that for several generations has seemed hell-bent on asserting its independence from the Executive Branch of government.

Second, there’s the Supreme Court, although it historically has tended, rather than part of the “checks and balances”, to reflect the party whose President appointments the majority of justices.

The pendulum swings left. The pendulum swings right.

And third, at the infamous “bottom line” is the ballot box. Whatever happens, in the final accounting we the people have only ourselves to blame!

That’s what scares me! I trust the collective wisdom of a people gathered around a common cause. But over America’s 236 years as an independent nation our people have lost sight of any common cause. Maybe it’s a result of easy accessibility to mass media; but in the past half-century the American public has become an increasingly polarized reflection of the political partisanism that has always characterized the caucuses and smoke-filled rooms where the movers and shakers gathered.

In itself, that’s neither good nor bad, if the partisan debate remains respectful and based upon solid, documented information. I understand and accept that unanimity in political economic debate is not going to happen, nor is it necessarily even a good thing. The dialectic process: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, remains a healthy, productive approach not only of resolving conflict, but also of discovery and progress.

The strength of the dialectic process; indeed, of any logical process, is the validity of its foundational principle—its premise. To date, the premises of neither the conservative nor the liberal principles in our national debate have been proven invalid. We need the continued debate, but only if it can be pursued with dignity, integrity and mutual respect.

How often have you heard a respectful debate—between anybody—on any political issue?

The strength of any democratically elected government depends fundamentally upon an informed electorate. I believe the American public has manifested (at least until the last couple of decades) the most highly educated population in human history. (One cynic called it the most educated but least informed). I have not the slightest doubt in the American ability to study and understand the issues and to make informed decisions in the voting booth.

In my observation is that ability is rarely applied. Instead, our electoral process has become an exercise in uninformed opinion and prejudice.

Some of us remember the days just after WWII: “Father Knows Best” was on TV, and “American Graffiti” was in theaters. It was a Norman Rockwell era, with Hitler gone and Tojo no longer running amok in the Pacific. General Electric’s motto was “Progress Is Our Most Important Product”. National economy was booming. We were secure, and prosperous, Church attendance soared—and we could walk the streets of our towns and most of our cities at night. Handsome national hero Dwight Eisenhower took over where Harry Truman left off, and rode the momentum to some of the greatest moments in American history.

And America grew fat and complacent–“entitled”. After a quarter century of war and depression, there was a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot, and the GI generation (Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation”) determined that their children would have it better than they had it. College education soared, business grew and Baby Boomers focused on climbing the corporate ladder and finding “self-fulfillment.”

Self-fulfillment and self-interest became primary American values, and a growing marketing industry egged on the transformation with slogans like, “the customer is always right;” “Have it your way;” “Image is everything;” “It’s all about you;” etc. The American Dream was being fulfilled.

Technology was booming, and with it came the growth of vocational specialization. We became increasingly dependent upon “professionals”—from doctors to TV repairmen.

Along the way Americans began to turn government over to “professionals”. Where Americans once may have informed themselves regarding important matters of government, politics and economics, they began to allow the “professionals” to tell them what to think. “Opinion” replaced information.

While everyone has a right to hold an opinion, opinion doesn’t always serve truth. And today the American public is paying the price for decades of complacency and abdication of its responsibility to be an informed electorate, chosing instead to accept, carte blanche, whatever the party of choice says.

Professional politicians caught on and realized it doesn’t make a lot of difference what they say, because a sizeable portion of the American public won’t bother to check it out.

We have met the enemy and he is us. The enemy is not Barak Obama. It’s not Mitt Romney. It’s not even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Neither Obama nor Romney can change America.

But we can.

First, we have to accept responsibility to inform ourselves beyond our information cocoons that do nothing but reinforce our biases and opinions. What’s the worst thing that can happen if it turns out you’re wrong? Or that the other party is right?

Listen to each other. Do any of us really—REALLY—believe that only our party has anything to offer? Each of us has part of the truth; but none of us has all of it. “We see through a glass darkly” (I Corinthians 13:12). We need each other. I need your part of the truth, and you need mine. And we need the humility to accept that even our combined wisdom won’t contain the whole truth. But together, at least we can move toward truth.

Unless and until that happens, and unless and until a large enough percentage of Americans rise up and demand that politicians start telling the truth and start campaigning on the basis of what’s best for America instead of what’s best for their careers and their party we deserve what we get.

Depressing? You bet your sweet bippy!

But am I wrong? I hope—I pray—that somebody will prove me wrong. PLEASE!

Friendship embodies systems of relationships between people, organizations or countries that are characterized by mutual trust, assistance, approval, support and respect. Nevertheless, we tend to refer to others as friends, even when they have yet to show all (or sometimes any) of the above mentioned criteria.  In fact, we go so far as to call individuals friends when we barely know them at all.  Can we be surprised when these same people fail to live up to our expectations?  No.  We cannot.  We gave a title of kinship to people who had not earned it.  While they may have surprised us and lived up to it, us being hurt was a far more likely conclusion.

This is not to imply that friends will never hurt you.  However, a friend, or rather a real friend, should have your best interest at heart, even (or maybe especially) on those occasions when you don’t even have your own best interest at heart.  Can anybody hear me?

In 1961 her reference was global. The fears she addressed emerged from the belligerently escalating arms race between the Soviet block and Western Democracies. Today, following the Soviet breakup, one might expect the “fear and malevolent ill-will” to abate. The reality, however, is that they have simply been redirected.

Since 9/11 a significant portion of that fear and ill-will has understandably been directed toward an apparent rising tide of militant, extreme Islamic fundamentalism. Tragically, that redirection too often is generalized to encompass all of Islam. Extremism and fundamentalism generally operate from a standard of sanity different from that of Western democracies. That distinction, combined with a distinct possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, is justifiable cause for concern.

But I observe something even more frightening than the threat of an extremist dictator with a bomb. As Cold War fear and ill-will were redirected following the Soviet breakup, far too much of it has been redirected inward (the residue of McCarthyism?) as Americans increasingly turn on each other!

Lest anyone think I am displaying a “Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling!” mentality, I recently saw a video clip in which a Texas judge, during a television interview, predicted armed rebellion if President Obama is re-elected, and said he is ready to participate in such a rebellion! A judge—on television! I’m not an attorney, but can you spell “sedition?”

Extreme Islamic sects don’t have a lock on fundamentalism! It runs amok, and is growing rapidly in America! (See my blog, “A House Divided”, for an expanded discussion of divisive sectarianism in America.)

Today, Lady Jackson’s global reference is quite appropriately applied domestically. At the time she offered her counsel to our President there was a very specific focus, viz., the Cold War. Today’s domestic manifestation is more generalized. It isnot directed toward any specific ideology; rather, it is directed toward any source that disagrees in any way with “me”. And it endangers anyone who happens to be in the line of fire!

Recently my sister responded to one of my blogs with, “Well said. Keep hammering the point. Maybe people will start to listen (emphasis mine).” So, upon the strength of her encouragement, I’m going to “hammer away” and quote one of my previous blogs (“Let’s You and Him Fight”) regarding the foundation of what I describe above as a “growing animosity between any … factions that do not agree totally…”

“It’s not a new phenomenon. Historically it’s been called Chauvinism. But its growing negative impact on the American political environment has stimulated other writers to confront it and understand it. My research has uncovered at least three other writers who are describing the same thing—but re-naming the demon!

“Frederick Schmidt calls it Triumphalism, which he describes as…

“…a desire for victory hardened into a mindset. It is the conviction that we are unerringly superior, fundamentally different from others. And when it takes deep root it leads to a fatal loss of moral perspective (emphasis mine). We begin to think of ourselves as uniformly and universally unerring and we label others in universally and uniformly negative categories.”[2]

“Former President, Jimmy Carter, identifies a similar (if not the same) syndrome, which he calls “Fundamentalism”.[3] Carter writes:

“There is a remarkable trend toward fundamentalism in all religions… Increasingly, true believers are inclined to begin a process of deciding: ‘Since I am aligned with God, I am superior and my beliefs should prevail, and anyone who disagrees with me is inherently wrong,’ and the next step is ‘inherently inferior.’ The ultimate step is ‘subhuman,’ and then their lives are not significant.

“Carter continues:

“There has been, indeed, a disturbing trend toward fundamentalism in recent years, among political leaders and within major religious groups both abroad and in our country, and they have become increasingly intertwined.”[4]

“A third treatment of the same phenomenon has yet another label and a more specific application; but gets to the same point. Wayne Self calls it a “supremacist” perspective.[5] Supremacy is defined in the Encarta Dictionary as a “believer in superiority of particular group; somebody who believes that a group is innately superior to others and therefore is entitled to dominate them.” Although virtually nobody would admit—even to him/herself—to believing that he/she is “entitled to dominate” anybody else, the truth is that social and cultural domination is systemic in our culture (and in most cultures) and is simply engrained in the assumptions and expectations we take for granted.

“Whatever it may be called, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny or even to avoid. It becomes valid to ask whether there even is a desire to heal the growing partisan divisiveness and truly to manifest the unity that is idealized on the loose change in our pockets: E Pluribus Unum – “From Many One?”

It’s tragic that idealism so often is equated with the unrealistic, the impractical and even with naïveté; nevertheless, I believe any solution to the “fear and ill-will” addressed in this writing will be found in an idealism in our national leadership today: the kind manifested in the earliest days of John Kennedy’s all-too-short tenure as President.

In a meeting with a group of Soviet experts in February, 1961, Charles Bohlen, one of those experts, described Kennedy as displaying “a mentality extraordinarily free of preconceived prejudices, inherited or otherwise . . . almost as though he had thrown aside the normal prejudices that beset human mentality. He saw Russia as a great and powerful country, and it seemed to him there must be some basis upon which the two countries could live without blowing each other up.”[6]

Idealistic though it may seem, I pray we are able to find some basis for living together within our own nation.

Retell: 

Topics:  bullying, revenge, ants

Units of Study:  Fantasy

Tribes:  mutual respect

Reading Skills:  analyzing character motivation, interpretation

Writing Skills:  experimenting with sentence structure

Thoughts:  Apparently this story was made into an animated movie back in 2006.  I guess I’ve been out of the loop.

This is a great read aloud for teaching about karma, the Golden Rule and the basic concept of treating others (even non-humans) with respect.  It’s also a great mentor text for students writing fantasy stories.  The structure is short and simple enough to mirror the fantasy stories that upper grade students may be writing.  It’s also great for demonstrating how stories can be structured around teaching the reader a lesson.

Unfortunately, it looks like this book is out of print.  Definitely worth a trip to your local library.

The cultural value the church has most consistently reflected in its two millennia is, “What’s in it for me?” And in American, which is the only culture in which I have participated, in my observations the two things the public most desires from the church are (1) eternal life in heaven [or at least the avoidance of Hell] and (2) prayer as a magic formula for health, wealth and happiness.

A gospel that begins, “The greatest among you must be a servant” (Matthew 23:11 NLT) is a hard sell to someone who grew up on “Have it Your Way!” The most consistent model for today’s church is consumerism, rather than the New Testament. The value reflected most consistently in regard to the North American church today is, “The customer is always right.”

I know what I believe, so I’ll find a church that supports what I believe; and if I can’t find one, I’ll start my own. The founders of my denomination believed that that kind of splintering of the Body of Christ was sinful; indeed, they believed that the existence of denominations is the product of human sin. They’d turn over in their graves to know that the movement they started has now splintered into yet three more specific denominations!

But it’s a “sign of the times.” That same kind of phenomenon is also visible in our political process. Time was when ours was a two-party system. Now, who knows how many there are?

In addition to the two traditional parties, the Republicans and Democrats, there are, based upon voting trends in the last two election cycles, three “major” Third parties: The Constitution Party, the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian Party.

According one source, there are a host of “minor” Third parties, including, in alphabetical order (are you ready for this?): the America First Party, the American Party, the American Independent Party, the American Nazi Party, the American Reform party, the American Third Position Party (A3P), America’s Party, the Boston Tea Party, the Communist Party USA, the Freedom Socialist Party, the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA), The Independence Party of America, the Independent American Party, the Justice party, the Light Party, the Modern Whig Party, the National Socialist Movement, the Objectivist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Prohibition Party, the Reform Party, the Social Democrats, USA Party, the Socialist Party USA, the Socialist Action Party, the Socialist Equality Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the U.S. World Party and the Working Families Party.

Nope; I’m not kidding. God save us from ourselves!

And we’re not through, yet! That same source lists “Other Parties”, qualified as “(Parties that have yet to field or endorse any candidates for office)”: The American Patriot Party, the Canary Party, the Citizens Party, the Conservative Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America Party, the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (apparently that’s really its name!), the Pansexual Peace Party, the Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Communist Communist Party USA, the Workers Party, USA and the World Socialist Party of the USA.[1]

“We have met the enemy and he is us!”

From other sources I found the “Individualist Anarchist Party” and a whole list of other kinds of cults and movements I won’t even try to list. Of late the so called “Sovereign Citizens” movement has claimed headlines, and most of us can click off at least a short list of survivalist groups and events surrounding them: David Koresh’ “Branch Davidians”, Tony Alamo, “The Cross, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord,” Ruby Ridge… We could fill pages with the lists. In one web site I counted 63 militia/survivalist groups, listed by state.

And all these groups and sub-groups believe in the validity of their cause, and quite probably in the exclusive validity of their cause.

Folks, can we stop and take a deep breath? What the “H – E – double-ECK” is going on?

Of course these are minor groups and movements that, taken individually, have virtually no impact beyond their immediate surroundings (and quite possibly not even there!) But taken as a whole there is a noticeable trend here. The concept of “we the people” is challenged (at whatever level of intensity) by a visible upsurge of countless “majorities of one!”

In June of 1858 Abraham Lincoln accepted the nomination to serve as the Illinois Republican Party’s candidate for the United States Senate. Although he lost the election to Stephen Douglas, the speech he made in accepting the nomination is now deemed one of his best-known and most influential speeches. In the speech he confronted the danger of dividing the nation over the issue of slavery, and even though delivered in a losing campaign, his words became a rallying point for Republicans north of the infamous Mason-Dixon Line.

The speech contains the quotation “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” which is taken from Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

I submit that America is a “House Divided”; indeed, it is a house that is being splintered by special interests and individual and fraternal Triumphalism (see my blog, “Let’s You and Him Fight“ for a discussion about Triumphalism and similar cultural phenomena).

Perhaps a moment’s contemplation on this is in order:

“Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.”[2]

Yeah, I know. It’s too radical. Nobody will buy it.