Busy Doing Things

My father used to say: "It's not what you say, it's what you do." Well, he said it at least once. He is what you might call the 'strong, silent type.' He proved to me long ago that fear and love are not opposites, but one-in-the-same, and even difficult to distinguish from one another. It made for a humble and temperate youth. At some point, probably in college, I realized that I did learn from his example exclusively, yet couldn't remember anything he ever said other than a few stories. I liked the stories from his childhood on the farm. I didn't know if they were true, other than the testimony from his brothers, always having some fleeting resemblances to my father's version. It was a fact that stories were and are novel and inconsequential compared to what he did/does/is (even if telling stories is some tiny part).

Is it really "not what you say?" Not at all? At first I found that disappointing. If this is true, and what you say means nothing at all, it means terrible things for aspiring authors. It means nothing you say or write has merit. It means all verbal communication is vacuous and trivial. It means you can say anything you want. Hey, wait. What was that? It means you can say anything you want! That's a nice spin on it...

Complete freedom! The U.S. Constitution even backs it up. "Freedom of speech," motherfucker! Stories, lies, damn lies, statistics, it's all fair game. If it ain't defamation, go for it...sweet. If it really "isn't what you say," knock yourself out. Right?

But, in that case, what's the point of saying anything at all? Why waste the time mumbling this after that (unless you're a commercial screenwriter). If it ain't for cash, and it leads nowhere but to more words, it's all in vain. What's the point? Hm. Vanity.

Is that the true meaning? Maybe what is said is all in vain unless you actually do something. It is true, that actually doing something can be inspired by what is said/written. Or, perhaps what is said is the reason the thing was done. But, at that point, is it important that anything was ever said in the first place? After the building has been built, what use are the blueprints? Hm. Well, to make another building, I guess. But, if something was done because what was said was reasonable, it certainly would have been reasonable even if nothing was said in the first place. Or, is it possible that a thing that is done requires previous spoken/written reasoning in order for it to be reasonable? I don't think so. An action, it seems, is either reasonable or it is not, regardless of what is said about it, before or after.

Maybe "it's not what you say, it's what you do," simply implies a disastrous inadequacy of language to accomplish anything at all, or possibly as much harm as good. Or, maybe more harm than good, in which case I am in trouble. But, I believe that writing, is, to some extent, doing, so much as it results in something done. And, if what is done is good, and somehow aided by the writing in some way, it is not altogether in vain. I guess that depends on whether you think vanity can be good. Another post. Well, time to go do something.

Egypt

With the transfer of power from an Egyptian autocrat to the Egyptian military, we watch a united and jubilant population celebrate their supposed liberation from the clutches of tyranny. The elite ruling class of Egypt apparently overestimated the people's tolerance for poverty, and now must concede some political power to an enormous and unorganized mob. It seems the one thing holding them together is a hatred of their former autocrat. Now, with his departure, the business of reorganization begins. Who assumes the power? Since the mob itself does not have hands, the power must be placed into the hands of an individual either representing the mob, or capable of subduing it. The question free people must ask is: will this person comprehend the obligations and challenges of a truly representative government? And, do the people of Egypt really have the courage, ability, and will to build and maintain one? Do they really want to shoulder the responsibility, and realize the "liberation" they believe they have earned? The truth is, they have not yet earned it. They have only glimpsed a small and fleeting opportunity. Without swift organization by very clever statesmen, and the capacity for the Egyptian people to identify and support them, the power vacuum created by their "revolution" will fall quickly into the hands of an even-more-vicious tyrant, who will be obligated to rule with an even stronger iron fist. A country tends to get the government it deserves, and it is a sad fact that an impoverished population of slaves scarcely has the electorate, or the leadership, to earn a government ruled by the consent of the governed. In the near future we will see whether Egypt's revolution will bury them even deeper in poverty and subjugation, or whether it has enough capable, service-minded leaders to free themselves and their neighbors, and usher a new age of prosperity. A capricious revolution is a tyrant's dream. Let's hope there was enough thought behind this to prevent such dreams from coming true.

Obedience and Resistance

Some Christians in Nazi Germany used Romans 13:6 ("the authorities are God’s servants") to justify tolerance for Hitler's extermination of the Jews. Is this a legitimate interpretation of the passage? Are followers of Christ free from accountability in murderous public affairs? Are they prohibited from intervening, required to watch in silence as tyrants murder millions?

Paul, the Author of Romans, makes it clear that "there is no authority except that which God has established," he also states "the authorities that exist have been established by God," and "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted."

As a Christian citizen, this seems terrifying, leaving the faithful helpless against the whim of rampaging tyrants. As a rampaging tyrant, this passage seems agreeable, possibly reducing the threat of revolt from angry subjects.

But, what 'authority' was Paul referring to? In the context of a world violently suppressed by the Roman Empire, was he really saying Christians ought to acquiesce to Roman authority? Perhaps a look at scripture is in order:

Here's how Jesus responded to the oppression of ruling tyrants:

• Advised subjects to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21), which many believe advocated tax evasion through untraceable, currency-free trade and barter transactions.
• Turned over the tables of the money changers who were trading legally. (Matthew 21:12-17).
  
• Was arrested at the Mount of Olives on grounds that he was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority. Also, "the manner in which Jesus entered Jerusalem was that of a Jewish king who claimed the throne. Convinced that he was King of the Jews and in deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass's colt. The people greet Jesus with strewn palms and cries of "Hosanna!" the ancient cry of Jewish independence. For Jesus to not have known the seditious actions that this implied, and the political impact that his act caused, would be incredulous to say the least" (from some Jewish site).
  
• Volunteered himself as a martyr and sacrifice to humanity. Because the trial and crucifixion of Jesus was widely recognized as a ghastly and unjust murder, an enduring subversive resistance to Roman authority was sparked. The Romans soon came to recognize the crucifixion as a profound act of political subversion. In fact, historians report that because of Pilate's poor political judgment in allowing Jesus to be crucified, he was reprimanded by higher Roman authority and exiled to Gaul (where he committed suicide).

It's reasonable to assume that Paul takes for fact that Christ became the single worldly authority after the resurrection, whereupon all legitimate governing institutions were suddenly, in fact, subject to God's law (even though many didn't get the memo right away). In other words, the meek suddenly did inherit the earth and the former Roman Empire was suddenly destroyed, and from that point on only vestiges of worldly authority remained and the meek would realize (make real) their inheritance over the next thousands of years (which has happened). In other words, authorities that kill and plunder lost authority after the resurrection.

By saying, "there is no authority except that which God has established," Paul is calling on the faithful to truly know that violent oppressors have no authority over them. Since no act of violence could come from an authority "established by God," violent authority is not to be recognized as authority. Advice on how to discern between legitimate and illegitimate authority comes from Jesus himself:

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16-20

The good fruit is true authority, fused with peace. The bad fruit is illegitimate 'authority,' which draws its power from fear, violence, coercion, and force.

Paul's definition of "rebellion" here is violent resistance with the aim of overthrowing an oppressive government. Of course, rebellion with the aim of, (e.g.) overthrowing a government, implies force, which itself is the bad fruit Christ was talking about. He rejects violent resistance, but certainly does not prohibit the peaceful resistance demonstrated by Christ and the many peaceful Christian martyrs and activists.

The radical peaceful civil disobedience demonstrated by Jesus has been employed against oppressive governments admirably and effectively many times. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, the gentleman in Tienanmen Square who stopped the tanks. Few would argue that these acts of resistance contradicted Christ or threatened peace. And, in all cases, the result was the diminishing power of an oppressive state. Even extraordinarily violent and lawless people champion one who martyrs himself for the sake of peace. The only force desirous of destroying such a person is a force desirous of destroying peace itself. Since this is so plainly obvious in light of Christ's message, story, and sacrifice, any authority that once resided in such a force was made instantly illegitimate (to all aware of it). The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was complete subversion.

Since the resurrection, there have been repeated historical examples of 'authorities' exposed as enemies of peace, and thus lacking in authority. This was the case for the Catholic church after the Reformation, Nazi Germany after WWII, and the Soviet Union after the Cold War. Despite good intentions, given time, all governments tend to lose authority. Tolstoy said it well...

"Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law (not written in books but in the hearts of men, and binding on every one) its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency."

If this is true, which I believe it is, it's not only acceptable for subjects to rebel against failing states using subversive peaceful disobedience, it is the duty of all peace-loving people to do so by definition, according to their own good judgment. In the United States and other republics, it is often forgot that all authority legally derives from the consent of the governed. In the U.S., this observation was a gift from our Founding Fathers, who themselves exposed the authoritative vacuum of the British Empire in the Americas, and left non-treasonous means to do so in the republic they designed. Legitimizing the authority of the people over government theoretically eliminates the need for bloody revolution so long as oppressed citizens exercise their rightful authority (as Paul might say: "as God's servants") to legally dissolve illegitimate authority in government as quickly as possible to protect peace. In this sense, enemies of peace need only stand idly by as the machine of government terrorizes, subjugates, and finally exterminates its own population.

Without Christ or Christ-like behavior, governments are necessarily cannibalistic. Jesus knew this, which is why he asked his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. Christians eat the body and blood of Christ instead of the body and blood of each other.

The body and blood Jesus speaks of includes not only the physical bodies of neighbors, but all property rightfully owned by them, and particularly the portion of property that constitutes their livelihood. It is well known that good people do not need laws to prevent them from stealing from their neighbor. But, almost all people will steal from their neighbor from behind the cloak of law, and particularly when doing so is necessary for the livelihood of their families. This is the case in the United States now. While intending, in vain, to improve the behavior of our neighbors, lawmakers have bound the hands of the righteous and charitable. Whenever this occurs, the overturning of such laws is warranted and necessary. In fact, if the law is used by thieves as a means to steal, it is not only the right of the plundered subjects to overturn those laws–it is their obligation for the sake of peace. If Paul was right, and "the authorities are God’s servants," those who serve God have authority over those who do not, regardless of worldly institutional association. To the extent laws are used as tools by those who violate, for example, the Commandments (by stealing (oppressive taxes) and murdering (unjust wars)), they lose their authority. When this happens, it is the state that rebels against true authority, and "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted." When this happens, the institution founded by Christ does gain worldly authority over worldly institutions, but not without action on the part of peacemakers.

This, in addition to the fact that Paul himself was an extremely energetic missionary, demonstrates quite clearly that action is warranted and necessary to secure the true authority of Christ, including peaceful subversive action. Any institution that cites the book of Romans in order to prevent revolt by subjugated victims does nothing but expose its fruits–and complete lack of authority in the eyes of all discerning Christians and peacemakers.

Distractions

Protesting property taxes, having a baby, and work have been distracting me from finishing a single Sasquatch Files post in several weeks. Being this blog is the juncture between time, space, and reality, I really need to adjust that trend...

The Children Are Our Future

Quantitative Easing Explained

The content of the following video is common knowledge among a growing number of people. Reporters are doing stories, people are making movies, and there are even children's books about this (including mine). But, no matter how much we are educated, most Americans don't take this seriously. They don't believe it. Why? I have observed a dangerous dichotomy:

1. The thoughtless and uninformed simply don't care and don't think about it.
2. The thoughtful and informed are not confident enough in their understanding given the huge scope, number of factors, and unknowns. This is reasonable.

This leaves an interesting situation. Because of this easy-to-identify dichotomy, a small number of folks at Goldman Sachs and the Fed have popular support in their practice of overtly and legally robbing the general population. It's brilliant. Our collective silence gives their individual consent. The few who see the racket are watching Ben and his buddies shovel our money from the bank into their money bin while most of everyone we know–our friends and family–are part of the bucket brigade. Hell, we are letting them get away with it by doing things like voting for their robber friends like Mark Dayton. He has openly revealed that he doesn't get it, will (at least implicitly) attempt to help them, and we still vote him into office because people think the candidate who does get it killed a woman's son while driving drunk because of some disingenuous attack ad!

The sad (and dangerous) thing is: I don't blame Goldman Sachs. I don't think folks like me blame Goldman Sachs either. In fact, I think some who are watching this think there is some sick justice in the fact that all of the willfully ignorant people around us are quietly being robbed and exploited. Some think it is almost worth being robbed themselves to know that the idiots all around them are looking the other direction while the community's bank accounts are being looted. This is the dark side. It is filled with apathy and disgust at the nature of man. I choose not to consider the robbery justice. It is a crime, and something worth writing about.

The Swaddle

Very young people have a tendency to remind you how genuinely helpless they are. There is no one more desperate and dependent than a screaming, hungry infant. They are obsessed. They cannot be distracted with shiny objects, or the bouncy-bouncy, or even a pacifier (in my case, pinky finger) for long. Hard-coded into their brains is the need for a nipple planted deep in their mouth and the procurement of sweet, sweet milk. In want of this they are certain of their immanent death. Waking from a deep slumber, the first tingle of hunger marks the inevitable descent to a slow, miserable, painful emaciation. They taste death. They do not hope. They do not believe or wish. They do not have faith that milk will arrive. They only know that they are sure to die, and that is all. Without the warm fluid flowing down their throats, there is only darkness.

Finding the breast between his lips, the infant, somehow, still cannot believe he has been saved. He tests, and then resumes crying. His lips touch the one thing that grants him life, and he refuses, pulling away. His own tiny hands flail about, intercepting the connection, preventing what he requires. He sucks on his fingers and then wails, cheek pressed against the only thing that will relieve his pain. The loving mother, determined to relieve his suffering, grows frustrated as his small but powerful fists and fingernails batter and scrape her tender flesh. The restless infant knows nothing other than to resist the one thing he desperately needs and desires. At this point, particularly when mother and infant are frustrated to tears, the father's role becomes essential. He takes the infant gently in his arms, places him on a flat surface, and initiates the swaddle.

swad·dle tr.v. swad·dled, swad·dling, swad·dles
~To wrap or bind in bandages; swathe.

Perhaps the most enjoyable part of being a new dad has been learning to completely immobilize my wily and self-destructive son so that breast feeding is plausible. This velcro-enhanced swaddling blanket is basically a straight jacket for kids, and works really well. Here is a quick, step-by-step swaddle tutorial...

1. Place swaddling blanket on flat surface.


2. Procure baby.


3. Place baby in blanket.

4. Pull foot hoodie thing over legs and restrain right arm to the side.

5. Wrap left flap over velcro patch while holding down right arm.

6. Wrap left flap all the way across and hold down the left arm.

7. Tuck the left flap tightly around to the back.

8. Pull right flap across torso and secure tightly with velcro patches.

Voila! He's swaddled.

9. Place in front of mommy for a peaceful feeding. He is now less capable of self-destructive behavior and ready to chow down! Yum.


The swaddle is really a temporary measure. While the binding may be enjoyable for the parent, it should only be practiced when absolutely necessary, and not purely for recreation. When the baby is old enough to feed unrestrained without causing harm to himself and others, swaddling should be ceased (sniff).