The room was largely empty. It was never that full. Not even in the better days. A television and its digital converting companion sat silently on some disposable IKEA furniture. A blue air mattress had been inflated and lay against the opposing wall like a small break in the white clouds. They were bare, there hadn’t been enough time to find the art that would have to have been removed when he left. Outside the snow fell quietly in the courtyard. The second grey building of the apartment complex was the only view from the window.
When the alarm went off, the man stirred and kicked off the blankets. There were three and he’d made the mistake of washing and drying them all. He didn’t know what they were made of and hadn’t thought to consult the tag for the proper care procedures. As a result, the blankets left little tufts of white and cream on any cloth they contacted. His pajamas had been through another blizzard last night. He sat up and looked outside and was thankful for the roof over his head even though he disliked the emptiness that lay beneath. Why had he left? Should he have done more to try to talk him into staying? Why couldn’t he ever seem to get out of the way of himself? Did everything that was good always have to be so fleeting? He stopped himself there. He didn’t like when he started thinking about life through the prism of some lyric from a song. He felt like he should have better clichés to use in his wallowing. He didn’t though, and that bothered him.
When he had moved here, everyone he talked to was tip-toeing past the graveyard and holding their breath. “Slowing down? No, so far so good.” Or, “we seem to have dodged the bullet up to this point.” That was then, but somewhere along the way, when he wasn’t paying attention, when he was busy falling in love, the lead found its target. He’d received his notice. The weekly pay ended and so did the solace of work. As long as he had had that, he didn’t have to be by himself so much. It hadn’t been so bad. He didn’t have to dwell on it. He didn’t have to realize it was all ending. Everything was wrapping up so nicely except he didn’t want what was on the inside.
He walked to the kitchen and assembled what he needed for breakfast. The pan was soon frying. The toaster busied itself with the task at hand. The refrigerator had been humming since he’d closed the door. Everything was doing what it was meant to do. The man sat and waited. His thoughts passed beyond concentration on the food and meandered to her. She was still here. It occurred to him that this whole time he’d been falling in love with two. Two, and she hadn’t left. Only he did and when he packed up the car that early morning and had driven off, well he’d departed with the future of all three of them in tow.
He couldn’t enjoy his breakfast. He kept wishing that things were different, that he could be different. He could make this work with just two. Just she and I. It was so simple and yet he spent so much time dwelling on it. He was aware of the growing exasperation but got distracted because he started thinking about Dylan and he found himself smiling, in spite of himself.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Iran
This is intended as a primer for anyone who like me is interested in what has been happening in Iran over the last few days. First, some historical context kept intentionally vague and brief.
1921-1925- Reza Pahlavi, a Brigadier General in the Persian (Iranian) Army takes control of the nation during this period beginning with a coup d'etat, overthrowing the existing government and eventually establishing his own dynasty which would rule the nation. He was not without opposition from other Iranians in doing this.
1925-1941- Reza Pahlavi, also known as Reza Shah, rules Iran as an autocrat with anti-communist and secularism policies. He began modernizing the country and tried to curb the influence of Islam in Iran through secular laws and policies.
1941- The British and Russians force Reza Pahlavi to abdicate the throne in lieu of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The British and Russians feared that Reza Pahlavi intended to ally himself with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. The invasion also allowed the Allies to use Iran's resources for their war effort.
1953- The British and U.S. governments overturn the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran who had held office since 1951. The Prime Minister had nationalized the oil industry which had been jointly run by an Iranian-British effort. In addition to this loss, the British and U.S.A. feared that the Prime Minister may have had communist sympathies which would have undermined the Shah's pro-Western stance. Iran shared an important border with the Soviet Union. Its oil wealth and location made it an important Cold War ally.
1950-1970s- The Shah of Iran continues his rule becoming increasingly autocratic and unpopular with his subjects.
1979- The Iranian Revolution occurs. The Shah is forced into exile. There were many revolutionary groups who took part including nationalists, Marxists and Islamic groups. In the chaos post-revolution, the Islamic revolutionaries take power and form a theocratic Islamic Republic led by the Ayatollah (high-ranking Shi'a cleric) Ruhollah Khomeini.
Soon after, relations with the West worsen, culminating with the Iran Hostage crisis which involved the storming of the American Embassy which overlapped the Carter and Reagan presidencies.
1981-1988- Saddan Hussein, leader of neighboring Iraq, invades Iran in hopes of acquiring disputed territories held by Iran which had large Arab populations, substantial oil reserves and would provide Iraq with greater access to the Persian Gulf. Somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians are killed before a U.N. cease-fire is agreed to.
1989- Khomeini dies. He is succeeded as Supreme Leader by Ali Khamenei.
1989-1997- Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani serves as President of Iran. He is a pragmatist and has pro-business policies and sought to rebuild and strengthen the economy while keeping the nation fundamentally aligned with the principles of the revolution.
1997-2005- Mohammad Khatami is President of Iran. He is a moderate and reformer who pushes for greater freedoms in Iranian society and sought to increase Iran's standing with the European Union and Asian nations. Many acknowledge that he was largely unsuccessful in moderating Iran's image because of the lack of support from Khamenei.
2002- President George W. Bush includes Iran with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" because they aided terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction.
2005-2009- Conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the position of Presidency. He is a controversial leader who does little to continue in the ways of his predecessors, Rafsanjani and Khatami.
The past week- An tightly contested election was held between Ahmadinejad and Hossein Mousavi, seen as many as a moderate who would return the country to the ways of Rafsanjani and Khatami.
Several sources have stated that the election results are fraudulent and that Mousavi won the election but has been removed from power by Khamenei and Ahmadienjad. There has been unrest in Iran since the "results" of the election were announced. Communications have been censored, media has been intimidated, protesters and university students have been assaulted by police and other armed groups. It has been alleged, though I have not seen it officially confirmed that members of Hezbollah have been brought to Iran to assist in the quelling of protests.
The outcome of this situation remains unforeseeable. Some see this as similar to the revolutions that happened throughout Europe in the late 80s as the Cold War was ending. Others are less hopeful and see a more apt comparison to Tiananmen Square.
1921-1925- Reza Pahlavi, a Brigadier General in the Persian (Iranian) Army takes control of the nation during this period beginning with a coup d'etat, overthrowing the existing government and eventually establishing his own dynasty which would rule the nation. He was not without opposition from other Iranians in doing this.
1925-1941- Reza Pahlavi, also known as Reza Shah, rules Iran as an autocrat with anti-communist and secularism policies. He began modernizing the country and tried to curb the influence of Islam in Iran through secular laws and policies.
1941- The British and Russians force Reza Pahlavi to abdicate the throne in lieu of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The British and Russians feared that Reza Pahlavi intended to ally himself with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. The invasion also allowed the Allies to use Iran's resources for their war effort.
1953- The British and U.S. governments overturn the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran who had held office since 1951. The Prime Minister had nationalized the oil industry which had been jointly run by an Iranian-British effort. In addition to this loss, the British and U.S.A. feared that the Prime Minister may have had communist sympathies which would have undermined the Shah's pro-Western stance. Iran shared an important border with the Soviet Union. Its oil wealth and location made it an important Cold War ally.
1950-1970s- The Shah of Iran continues his rule becoming increasingly autocratic and unpopular with his subjects.
1979- The Iranian Revolution occurs. The Shah is forced into exile. There were many revolutionary groups who took part including nationalists, Marxists and Islamic groups. In the chaos post-revolution, the Islamic revolutionaries take power and form a theocratic Islamic Republic led by the Ayatollah (high-ranking Shi'a cleric) Ruhollah Khomeini.
Soon after, relations with the West worsen, culminating with the Iran Hostage crisis which involved the storming of the American Embassy which overlapped the Carter and Reagan presidencies.
1981-1988- Saddan Hussein, leader of neighboring Iraq, invades Iran in hopes of acquiring disputed territories held by Iran which had large Arab populations, substantial oil reserves and would provide Iraq with greater access to the Persian Gulf. Somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians are killed before a U.N. cease-fire is agreed to.
1989- Khomeini dies. He is succeeded as Supreme Leader by Ali Khamenei.
1989-1997- Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani serves as President of Iran. He is a pragmatist and has pro-business policies and sought to rebuild and strengthen the economy while keeping the nation fundamentally aligned with the principles of the revolution.
1997-2005- Mohammad Khatami is President of Iran. He is a moderate and reformer who pushes for greater freedoms in Iranian society and sought to increase Iran's standing with the European Union and Asian nations. Many acknowledge that he was largely unsuccessful in moderating Iran's image because of the lack of support from Khamenei.
2002- President George W. Bush includes Iran with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" because they aided terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction.
2005-2009- Conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the position of Presidency. He is a controversial leader who does little to continue in the ways of his predecessors, Rafsanjani and Khatami.
The past week- An tightly contested election was held between Ahmadinejad and Hossein Mousavi, seen as many as a moderate who would return the country to the ways of Rafsanjani and Khatami.
Several sources have stated that the election results are fraudulent and that Mousavi won the election but has been removed from power by Khamenei and Ahmadienjad. There has been unrest in Iran since the "results" of the election were announced. Communications have been censored, media has been intimidated, protesters and university students have been assaulted by police and other armed groups. It has been alleged, though I have not seen it officially confirmed that members of Hezbollah have been brought to Iran to assist in the quelling of protests.
The outcome of this situation remains unforeseeable. Some see this as similar to the revolutions that happened throughout Europe in the late 80s as the Cold War was ending. Others are less hopeful and see a more apt comparison to Tiananmen Square.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Strong, but Good, Medicine
Last night, I was watching 60 Minutes. The first two features were on Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, and Edward M. Liddy, the temporary head of AIG. During their interviews, one of these men was asked if he liked his job and the other, why he decided to take the assignment, when he was successfully and comfortably semi-retired. Both gave a response that hinged upon the idea that they were compelled to do the job by a higher calling of duty than their personal fulfilment. In fact, both seemed to say they didn't really enjoy their jobs at all but they still did them. Sometimes, I wonder if I, specifically, and our generation, at large, are capable of understanding duty in that same way...or if we are a bunch of fat cats who have been ruined by the social turmoil of the 60s and 70s and the unrealistic prosperity of the 80s and 90s. Do I have what it takes to step into the march?
http://wunderkammermag.com/20090517/ryan-r-ellis-americas-audacious-hope
America's Audacious Hope
by Ryan R. Ellis 17 May 2009
Today begins like any other day; a familiar cardigan and worn sneakers soothe the sleep from our eyes as we search for our next spoonful of Cheerios. It will be a good day; a day of importance and personal value, a day that builds the dreams of tomorrow upon the blessings of days gone by. We’re Americans. It’s our right.
Our national character was forged through the acknowledgment of responsibility, refined by strife and, for our efforts, we were entitled to our reward. The United States is special because of who we are and what we have done, and our privileged identity—enshrined in narrative—is secure.
“Remember, you’re special, just the way you are.”
For forty-six years those words joined breakfast tables across the country, reminding American children of their place in life and their standing in the world. They were words penned in sacrifice, blood and toil—a proud inheritance invested in the generations to come. They reminded us to look responsibly toward the future, and for 46 years the message remained the same: we were special just the way we were.
Though the basic message of our nation’s hope has remained the same, generation to generation, its recipients have not.
Founded on the promise of opportunity and preserved past civil war, our republic needed a century to gain a firm footing on it own soil and forty-two years more to establish credible influence beyond our borders. As the smoke of World War I cleared and our political hypothesis solidified, we proved that a society built upon liberty and diverse individualism could not only survive, but could command authority around the globe.
This was Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.
Born in 1928, Fred Rogers was from the “Greatest Generation.” Coming of age in the Great Depression, Mr. Rogers began his adult life in the influence and prosperity that accompanied the Allied victory over fascism. Faced with looming threats of Communism and the bomb, the purpose of his generation was clear: justice, freedom and peace were to be secured regardless of cost. Because of their commitment and sacrifice, their America was special, a beacon of freedom in a land of justice and opportunity.
Having lived this reality and having seen the righteousness of individual liberty played out on the world stage, Mr. Rogers embraced the truth of his nation and dedicated his life to the education of America’s children. The unique value and importance of each individual American was the basis of our national freedom. Thus, to strengthen each individual was not only moral; it was the key to maintaining national influence and unified peace. Inherent self-value meant the cultivation of self-interest, and self-interest lead to personal responsibility, and responsibility then drove progress and prosperity.
However, as the Baby Boomers came of age, the status quo of American power and influence began to stagnate. The realities of inequality and segregation did not seem to correspond with the America the Boomers had been raised to revere. If America was truly special, each person deserved to actualize the value of his or her inalienable self-worth. After all, Mr. Rogers told us to be good neighbors to everyone.
With the evils facing their parents put to rest, this generation found their expression of our national character in the causes of equality. Civil rights, race, gender and conscription dominated the social palate. This was a country of self-determination and individual liberty, and the Boomers would be damned if race, sex or the preferential wars of old men were going to disband the timeless truths that made this country great. With protests and marches, through imprisonment and Vietnam, the Boomers staked their claim in the equality of all persons, in the realization of the neighborly American Dream.
Yet for all of their progress, as the Boomers eclipsed middle age, a new generation began to emerge—one that didn’t know the horrors of war or the sting of depression. This generation wouldn’t know of an America of gross inequality and blatant social oppression, neither would they be versed in talk of Fascism, Communism or the fall of Saigon. This is our generation, the Millennials, Generation Y. Nurtured by Mr. Rogers, we too are told the same stories and engrained with the same national truths, but within a radically unique social milieu.
We are still told that we are special, just as we are told that our individualism and self-actualization is the key to our national prosperity and, on top of that, that anything we want is to be ours. It is our entitlement, passed down from the shores of Iwo Jima and the buses of Birmingham. Yet the causes and subsequent responsibilities of generations past are no longer on the table. Hitler was defeated, communism fell, conscription was retired, and radical inequality acknowledged. This is not to say that there isn’t still great work to be done, but rather that our generation’s causes have become niched. We don’t have a war for everyone to fight, a draft to dodge, or a pervasive Jim Crow to oppose: our responsibility has become a matter of personal preference and choice.
Without a specific generational cause, Millennials are forced to haphazardly search for obligation and meaning outside of themselves. We know we are special, but we cannot seem to find an enduring way to prove it. No longer does obligation and responsibility connote self-worth, but self-worth gives rise to any myriad of potential obligations. Built on preference, fueled by emotion, and funded with credit, causes are marketed—ostensible populism waiting to be consumed. And as good consumers, we rest assured that others are doing the dirty work for us; our responsibility will rarely extend beyond a rubber bracelet or a Product Red t-shirt from the Gap.
Our inherent value is now founded neither on our responsibility to the world nor on the righting of injustice, but rather on the mere fact of our existence. Daily, we feel the weight of our special nation and of our special hope, but can we really claim privilege without sacrifice, or true ownership without exertion?
We assume that the petty squabbles and ignorant conflicts of the past have no hold on our enlightened, cosmopolitan minds. Our freedom from the past is our freedom to forget. We are tolerant and accepting, expedient and polite—understanding Jefferson, Payne, Mill and Locke as obvious and commonplace. Could it be that we have come to the pinnacle of history and are somehow the generation that finally “gets it” and is free?
Absolutely not—to paraphrase Nietzsche, we must be wary of proudly puffing out our chests, only to later find them to be hollow.
We are the first generation whose essential conflict is internal. With no central theme or cause, we strive for fulfillment in the assertion of self-worth, and we seek any way to extend credibility to how special we are. We tweet and blog until the world is numb, yet we may have ultimately missed the point.
Being special isn’t about proof and affirmation, but rather about standards, commitments and results. Sure, being “special’ is a function of who we are, but we are defined by what we have done. Self-worth is a function of accomplishment, and accomplishment is contingent upon commitment.
With the populism of 2008 and the election of President Obama due in large part to the support of the Millennials, “Change We Can Believe In” is in danger of becoming another fleeting cause that makes us feel good about ourselves. Our desire for national unity and regeneration is a good thing and the rhetoric of the campaign piqued the feelings deep inside of us. President Obama affirmed our individual agency and power, our ability to change the world because of who we are as Americans. But it will ring hollow if our responsibility and commitment do not follow in tow. In the face of irresponsible economic speculation, deteriorating public education, untenable social entitlements, and a climate being strained by our thirst for fossil fuels, the problems we face are too great for us to shamefully waste our resources on leisure and passivity.
Whatever our politics, being on a mailing list does not constitute commitment, nor does an emotional high demark the fulfillment of a responsibility. We must “commit” to seeing our commitments through, for the weight of our audacious hope is now the responsibility of our generation. It need not be wasted on indulgent lip service when it can be invested in creative commitments to social progress and national prosperity.
Ryan R. Ellis is a lecturer at Wheaton College and holds an MA in Sociology and Political Philosophy from the University of Chicago.
http://wunderkammermag.com/20090517/ryan-r-ellis-americas-audacious-hope
America's Audacious Hope
by Ryan R. Ellis 17 May 2009
Today begins like any other day; a familiar cardigan and worn sneakers soothe the sleep from our eyes as we search for our next spoonful of Cheerios. It will be a good day; a day of importance and personal value, a day that builds the dreams of tomorrow upon the blessings of days gone by. We’re Americans. It’s our right.
Our national character was forged through the acknowledgment of responsibility, refined by strife and, for our efforts, we were entitled to our reward. The United States is special because of who we are and what we have done, and our privileged identity—enshrined in narrative—is secure.
“Remember, you’re special, just the way you are.”
For forty-six years those words joined breakfast tables across the country, reminding American children of their place in life and their standing in the world. They were words penned in sacrifice, blood and toil—a proud inheritance invested in the generations to come. They reminded us to look responsibly toward the future, and for 46 years the message remained the same: we were special just the way we were.
Though the basic message of our nation’s hope has remained the same, generation to generation, its recipients have not.
Founded on the promise of opportunity and preserved past civil war, our republic needed a century to gain a firm footing on it own soil and forty-two years more to establish credible influence beyond our borders. As the smoke of World War I cleared and our political hypothesis solidified, we proved that a society built upon liberty and diverse individualism could not only survive, but could command authority around the globe.
This was Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.
Born in 1928, Fred Rogers was from the “Greatest Generation.” Coming of age in the Great Depression, Mr. Rogers began his adult life in the influence and prosperity that accompanied the Allied victory over fascism. Faced with looming threats of Communism and the bomb, the purpose of his generation was clear: justice, freedom and peace were to be secured regardless of cost. Because of their commitment and sacrifice, their America was special, a beacon of freedom in a land of justice and opportunity.
Having lived this reality and having seen the righteousness of individual liberty played out on the world stage, Mr. Rogers embraced the truth of his nation and dedicated his life to the education of America’s children. The unique value and importance of each individual American was the basis of our national freedom. Thus, to strengthen each individual was not only moral; it was the key to maintaining national influence and unified peace. Inherent self-value meant the cultivation of self-interest, and self-interest lead to personal responsibility, and responsibility then drove progress and prosperity.
However, as the Baby Boomers came of age, the status quo of American power and influence began to stagnate. The realities of inequality and segregation did not seem to correspond with the America the Boomers had been raised to revere. If America was truly special, each person deserved to actualize the value of his or her inalienable self-worth. After all, Mr. Rogers told us to be good neighbors to everyone.
With the evils facing their parents put to rest, this generation found their expression of our national character in the causes of equality. Civil rights, race, gender and conscription dominated the social palate. This was a country of self-determination and individual liberty, and the Boomers would be damned if race, sex or the preferential wars of old men were going to disband the timeless truths that made this country great. With protests and marches, through imprisonment and Vietnam, the Boomers staked their claim in the equality of all persons, in the realization of the neighborly American Dream.
Yet for all of their progress, as the Boomers eclipsed middle age, a new generation began to emerge—one that didn’t know the horrors of war or the sting of depression. This generation wouldn’t know of an America of gross inequality and blatant social oppression, neither would they be versed in talk of Fascism, Communism or the fall of Saigon. This is our generation, the Millennials, Generation Y. Nurtured by Mr. Rogers, we too are told the same stories and engrained with the same national truths, but within a radically unique social milieu.
We are still told that we are special, just as we are told that our individualism and self-actualization is the key to our national prosperity and, on top of that, that anything we want is to be ours. It is our entitlement, passed down from the shores of Iwo Jima and the buses of Birmingham. Yet the causes and subsequent responsibilities of generations past are no longer on the table. Hitler was defeated, communism fell, conscription was retired, and radical inequality acknowledged. This is not to say that there isn’t still great work to be done, but rather that our generation’s causes have become niched. We don’t have a war for everyone to fight, a draft to dodge, or a pervasive Jim Crow to oppose: our responsibility has become a matter of personal preference and choice.
Without a specific generational cause, Millennials are forced to haphazardly search for obligation and meaning outside of themselves. We know we are special, but we cannot seem to find an enduring way to prove it. No longer does obligation and responsibility connote self-worth, but self-worth gives rise to any myriad of potential obligations. Built on preference, fueled by emotion, and funded with credit, causes are marketed—ostensible populism waiting to be consumed. And as good consumers, we rest assured that others are doing the dirty work for us; our responsibility will rarely extend beyond a rubber bracelet or a Product Red t-shirt from the Gap.
Our inherent value is now founded neither on our responsibility to the world nor on the righting of injustice, but rather on the mere fact of our existence. Daily, we feel the weight of our special nation and of our special hope, but can we really claim privilege without sacrifice, or true ownership without exertion?
We assume that the petty squabbles and ignorant conflicts of the past have no hold on our enlightened, cosmopolitan minds. Our freedom from the past is our freedom to forget. We are tolerant and accepting, expedient and polite—understanding Jefferson, Payne, Mill and Locke as obvious and commonplace. Could it be that we have come to the pinnacle of history and are somehow the generation that finally “gets it” and is free?
Absolutely not—to paraphrase Nietzsche, we must be wary of proudly puffing out our chests, only to later find them to be hollow.
We are the first generation whose essential conflict is internal. With no central theme or cause, we strive for fulfillment in the assertion of self-worth, and we seek any way to extend credibility to how special we are. We tweet and blog until the world is numb, yet we may have ultimately missed the point.
Being special isn’t about proof and affirmation, but rather about standards, commitments and results. Sure, being “special’ is a function of who we are, but we are defined by what we have done. Self-worth is a function of accomplishment, and accomplishment is contingent upon commitment.
With the populism of 2008 and the election of President Obama due in large part to the support of the Millennials, “Change We Can Believe In” is in danger of becoming another fleeting cause that makes us feel good about ourselves. Our desire for national unity and regeneration is a good thing and the rhetoric of the campaign piqued the feelings deep inside of us. President Obama affirmed our individual agency and power, our ability to change the world because of who we are as Americans. But it will ring hollow if our responsibility and commitment do not follow in tow. In the face of irresponsible economic speculation, deteriorating public education, untenable social entitlements, and a climate being strained by our thirst for fossil fuels, the problems we face are too great for us to shamefully waste our resources on leisure and passivity.
Whatever our politics, being on a mailing list does not constitute commitment, nor does an emotional high demark the fulfillment of a responsibility. We must “commit” to seeing our commitments through, for the weight of our audacious hope is now the responsibility of our generation. It need not be wasted on indulgent lip service when it can be invested in creative commitments to social progress and national prosperity.
Ryan R. Ellis is a lecturer at Wheaton College and holds an MA in Sociology and Political Philosophy from the University of Chicago.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Canby Woman Blues
You drove off before the snow came
I didn't know then but it was the end of the game
The snow and me...we put out the flame
Nobody else can take the blame
Now it's all gone
The curtain's been drawn
As I watched you drive on
Into the Portland dawn
Some of that time was so sublime
And again I'm stuck on this ol' rhyme
Futilely trying to turn back time
I didn't know then but it was the end of the game
The snow and me...we put out the flame
Nobody else can take the blame
Now it's all gone
The curtain's been drawn
As I watched you drive on
Into the Portland dawn
Some of that time was so sublime
And again I'm stuck on this ol' rhyme
Futilely trying to turn back time
Monday, April 27, 2009
Roadtrip
This blog was started about ten months ago to chronicle a journey to Oregon. I assume that most everyone who reads this blog knows by now that the journey ended some time ago. I left Oregon in the aftermath of a 30-year storm not knowing exactly what I was doing. I returned a few weeks later to drive my truck and some clothing home not really taking the time to consider what might wait around the corner. It's very hard to talk about the whole experience because I'm only, now, truly starting to think about everything that has happened. For the the first third of 2009, I was back in Orange County going through familiar motions. I was in a routine that started four years ago. Two weekends ago, I returned to Portland for the first time since I'd left.
I don't know why I'm writing this now. It's difficult to take a measure of the time I spent in the Pacific Northwest. On the one hand, the joys of living in a new city which I loved and bonding with my brother as our relationship moved from mere familial to a much deeper friendship. Throw meeting a wonderful woman into the equation and things were really starting to look like the start of something better beginning. Then everything ended so abruptly. It was hard to go back because, at first, I didn't know what to expect and then, I realized that nothing was going to be the same as it had been last fall. While it was wonderful to return home to friends and family, it's been heartbreaking in its own way to realize that I stumbled into such an amazing period of life and then fell out of it so abruptly. I can't get my head around it all.
I don't know why I'm writing this now. It's difficult to take a measure of the time I spent in the Pacific Northwest. On the one hand, the joys of living in a new city which I loved and bonding with my brother as our relationship moved from mere familial to a much deeper friendship. Throw meeting a wonderful woman into the equation and things were really starting to look like the start of something better beginning. Then everything ended so abruptly. It was hard to go back because, at first, I didn't know what to expect and then, I realized that nothing was going to be the same as it had been last fall. While it was wonderful to return home to friends and family, it's been heartbreaking in its own way to realize that I stumbled into such an amazing period of life and then fell out of it so abruptly. I can't get my head around it all.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Fresh Air
A few months ago I became a daily listener to Terry Gross. Her interviews have become a part of my daily routine. I found yesterday's program particularly interesting so I offer it up here for any feedback or discussion that may take place. I only wish it had been broadcast about a month ago. Enjoy!
UPDATE: Rich Cizik was asked to and then did resign because of this interview. Jim Wallis' take on the events...
UPDATE: Rich Cizik was asked to and then did resign because of this interview. Jim Wallis' take on the events...
Rich Cizik has been a pioneer in the “new evangelical” movement and a real hero, especially to the next generation of young believers. Rich has helped lead the way to putting “creation care” and climate change on the mainstream agenda of the evangelical movement. His pilgrimage to a deep passion for the planet that God made for us has been, in his own language, a “conversion” and an “epiphany.” Because of that, he has become a powerful spokesperson for many in the Christian world who are having that same conversion. The agenda of the evangelical world is deeper and wider because of Rich Cizik. In addition to the environment and climate change, Cizik has also led on the fundamental moral and biblical issues of global poverty and commitments like the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), human trafficking, religious liberty, genocide in Darfur, and foreign policy issues like torture and even nuclear weapons. The NAE’s critically important statement, “For the Health of the Nation”, bears powerful witness to the wider agenda that is the shape of the new evangelical movement in America, and certainly around the world—especially for the next generation. But Rich Cizik resigned this week, at the request of the NAE, because of things he said in an NPR interview with Terry Gross. The controversy of some of Rich’s statements, in particular his “shifting” feelings about gay civil unions, admitting that he voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, and implying that he did so in the general election, caused so much controversy in some quarters of the NAE’s constituency that the Executive Committee felt they had no choice but to suggest resignation, which Rich quickly but sadly accepted. Rich Cizik still supports the Christian tradition of marriage between a man and a woman, which he reiterated after the interview, and that his strong pro-life commitments certainly included abortion, even though in the interview he said that pro-life commitments should include more than just abortion. He pointed out in the interview that younger evangelicals don’t have all the same views on gay and lesbian rights as their parents do, that more of them have friendships with gay people, and that more are sympathetic to their equal protection under the law and issues like civil unions. Cizik admitting that he identified with those shifts created the firestorm. All of this is very sad for many reasons. Rich has served the NAE, the evangelical movement, the wider church, and the wider world in such a dynamic, creative, and courageous way for 28 years, and for that service to end over the words of an interview is sad indeed. Already, leaders from many faith traditions, including many national evangelical leaders, have expressed great dismay at the loss of Rich Cizik in such a key role. And the Religious Right is already using Cizik’s resignation to attempt to roll back the wider social justice and environmental agenda of the NAE. In a particularly bizarre statement, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said: This is the risk of walking through the green door of environmentalism and global warming — you risk being blinded by the green light and losing your sense of direction.
But NAE President Leith Anderson made clear that the NAE had no intention of retreating from the commitments of “For the Health of the Nation” and, while he defended the need for the resignation of Rich Cizik, said that it “saddened him” and was “personally painful.” I personally trust Leith Anderson’s and the NAE Executive Committee’s commitment to the wider evangelical agenda beyond just abortion and gay marriage, but also feel deeply saddened by these events. And I encourage the NAE’s leadership to stay on the path they have chosen and resist the efforts of those who would again seek to narrow the evangelical agenda in unbiblical ways and make it again subservient to a conservative political agenda.As for Rich Cizik, he will continue to be a leader in the new faith coalition that is emerging now, and that will replace the Religious Right, without becoming a Religious Left. Pioneers sometimes get into trouble and even pay a price for their explorations into new territories. But in the new moral center that is now visible, Rich’s prophetic voice and leadership will continue to be heard and felt.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Republicanism in 2012
Since everyone is very eager to proclaim the end of Reagan Republicanism, I think in the future the party is going to be searching for a new identity. Of course, I've lamented the idea of taking the solutions of the past and trying to apply them to today but at the same time you do need to keep track of what American Conservatism has been so if you go back to the pre-Reagan days you have the group of Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford. Certainly there are elements of this vein of Republicanism that are horrendous and you never want to repeat them but at the same time you are reminding of things like this and you realize that whatever fusion of ideas the party comes up with...looking to Ike for some wisdom and guiding principles isn't such a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
