Catholic Church Reform: What Is It?

     Catholic Church reform.  What is it?  What should it be?  Who decides?  Who should decide?
     What is it?
     Hot button issues come to mind.  Women's ordination.  Married clergy. Liturgy--lay involvement.  Liturgy--inclusive language.
     These are valid, worthy issues central to Catholic Church reform.  Yet, in defining what it should be, dangers need to be identified--dangers to effecting reform.
     Herd mentality.  Rote support of hot button issues.  Rote support of advocates, who can speak the loudest.
     I write cognizant of time's luxury, which long-term disability affords me.  I write cognizant of my time's responsibility--God's time to me.  I must not squander that precious time--that precious responsibility.  Were I to squander, I would aggravate the problems--the issues--I sought to address.
     Who decides?
     "Church Hierarchy!" is the rallying cry of church reform campaigns.  Yet, hierarchy, to some degree, is necessary for the advancement of any organization's issues.  In the extreme, anarchy is hierarchy's adversary.  Effective Catholic Church reform lies somewhere in the middle.
     Catholic Church Reform.  Who decides?
     I know my place.  I make no submissive cry to avoid responsibility.  No.  I know my place.  I have been asked to help clarify issues.  Research.  Write drafts of recommendations.  Listen.  Heed direction of individuals who will make recommendations based in part upon my research.  Revise. Rewrite.  Submit.  Listen.
     I have tremendous respect for the knowledge, experience, convictions, and beliefs of the individuals I will work with.  I pray that I will nurture and maintain that same level of respect of and for each individual I meet.
    I pray that I will seek a broad understanding of the people, issues, organizations, and perspectives within the catholic church.  I pray not to imprison myself within the popular positions on hot button issues just to do so.  Already I sense myself doing just that.
   Catholic Church Reform.  What is it?
   It is not for me to define in isolation.  For now, I shall act as a squirrel might.  I shall gather nuts--food for thought--for the work ahead--nuts that may sustain me.  Websites.  Blogs.  Publications.  These are but three of the nuts I gather for the exciting, daunting, scary, exhilarating, unknown journey ahead me--ahead of us.

The Stairway

     2625 Vale Crest Road.  April 26, 1960.  A foundation was laid.  A baby was born.  A home.  My values.
     A split-level home.  The front door.  The front entryway.  A stairway down to the den--an office, laundry room, a Singer sewing machine.  Mom.
    A defining moment.
     Late 1960s.  Pacifists.  Vietnam.  Mom's first-born son.  My brother.  My Idol.  The  Draft.  Drawing "your" number.  Lower numbers go to Vietnam first.
     Me.  The baby of the family.  Home from school.  I walk into the front entryway.  Mom hears me.  With baited breath I ask, "What was His Number?"
     30
     Not good.  Frightening.
     30
     Conscientious Objector.
     30
     Only later--much later--did I learn how close we came.  A hearing set.  Our minister set to testify.  Last minute change.  The minister could not come.  I do not remember what followed.  How did we succeed?  My memory fails me.
     30  
    Our job?  Prove why a very young man be drafted into the quagmire known as Vietnam.  The quagmire put before our eyes by Walter Cronkite each night.
     30
    When Conscientious Objector status was granted, I understood the responsibility of pacifism.  Diplomacy.  World peace in our living room--conscientious objection at the Stairway.
    30
     Forty years have passed.  The memory--the image--of that moment is as clear as when I first stood at the Stairway.
      30
     The waving of the United Nations flag on October 24--the anniversary of the UN's founding--added to the responsibility to live conscientious of our life's commitments.  Meetings of the World Federalists in the living room--in the heart of our home--embodied the same spirit.
     30
     What happened to that young man?  Did he ever offer service?  Yes.  Yet today, he offers medical care to those who come to him in need.  Yes.  He offered service.  Yes.  He offers service.
     30
     2625 Vale Crest Road.  April 26, 1960.
     My home has changed.  Time has passed.
     30
     I pray we do not fall down The Stairway.  I pray we remain steadfast Conscientious Objectors to actions that mask themselves as National Security.  May we not pound our chests.  May we seek peace, understanding, diplomacy, and care.
     30

Avenging Death

     Can you help me?  Math never has been my strong suit.  Can you help me?
     What is the sum of the following equation:
      Number of People Killed in the September 11th Attacks x Terrorists Involved= ???
     How many terrorists must be killed in order to avenge--inflict harm in return for (an injury or wrong done to oneself or another)--the deaths of any act of terrorism, or war?
     Are we so caught up in justified grief that we are willing to engage in ill-defined actions of retribution?
     CBS News is one organization of the Fourth Estate, who has used the phrase, "US hit list" to describe the strategy used to fight terrorism.  What does that strategy say regarding the model democracy patriotic Americans strive to present to the rest of the world?  Does that strategy speak with integrity?
     I am not someone who can quote chapter and verse of the Bible.  Innumerable problems have resulted from that practice.  With that said, I offer for your consideration the passage from Exodus 21:23-26:
     But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life,
     Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
     Burn for burn, stripe for stripe,
                                                  Exodus: 21: 23-26                                                
    I am not a biblical scholar, I have tremendous difficulty with how the term "patriot" is used in common parlance.  I am at peace with how the term "pacifist" is defined.  So much so that I describe myself as a pacifist.
    Do those facts disqualify me?  Do those facts strip me of any credibility, and integrity my conclusions might have?
     I hope not.
     Is it plausible that families of terrorists pursue peaceful endeavors?  What would the effect of avenging death have on the families of terrorists?  Are all family members committed to engaging in acts of terrorism?
     I have so many questions.
     Can you help me to understand?

Mermaid Chronicles: Weight of the World

    The weight of the world.  Goals.  Cures.
     Taking on the weight of the world is tempting.  Being a civic-minded member of society.  Being a world citizen.  Being a productive employee.  Being someone with a good work ethic.  Each is a laudable pursuit.
     Yet...each of these pursuits in excess dilutes the pursuits--negates the end goal.
     This morning, this mermaid went for her morning swim.  An hour immersed in clear water.  Although I swim in one of four lap lanes, I do not count the laps I swim in numbers' measure.  I do not set out to do a prescribed number of specific types of strokes.
     I listen.  I listen to my body.  At a higher pitch than my ears can hear, lighter than my skin can feel, sweeter than any candy, and lighter--more ethereal--than any shadow to see.  I listen to my body.   I feel her need.  Deeper than the deepest pool of water.  I feel her need welling within me.
     As I put flippers on my feet, to strengthen them further, my feeling of exertion changed.  I did not feel the exertion I felt in my shoulders, as I had raised my arms straight up in the air from beneath the water.
     I seek no cures.  I do my best--not perfect, by any stretch--to live the life I am given each day.  I set SMART goals, as they were dubbed in the corporate world in which I worked for more than 24 years.
    I swim four mornings a week, one hour each morning.  I volunteer doing research at a museum six hours a week, three hours on two afternoons.  I work on my blog writing.  I work the daily New York Times crossword puzzle..  I do it in pen.  I don't finish it often.  But...I do it.  I enjoy it.  I attend to simple household tasks.  I use my time--my life's time--constructively.  Not for grandiose purposes.  But, for purposes that I feel I can give effective voice to bear.
     My goals are SMART.  Specific.  Measurable.  Actionable.  Realistic.  Time-specific.
     When I was introduced to the concept of SMART goals, they seemed artificial--contrived.  The SMART goals were not for me.  They were to satisfy someone else's goals.  I was not very effective in setting and achieving SMART goals.
     My corporate work life ended--abruptly.  Two years after that ending, I have set my SMART goals.  Now I am living those goals--My SMART goals.   With time, my goals may change.  I will listen to the world around me.  Yet, I will not allow my keen hearing be deafened by the white noise--the screaming voices ever present in our world
     When I am in the water, I float.  When I am in the water, I do not feel the weight of the world on my shoulders.  Being graced with that privilege is not lost on me.

Information

     What information do governments share?  To natives, to world citizens?  Do we listen?  Or, do we presume that government information is suspect, by virtue of its connection to political bodies?
     The less coverage given by our own media, the more important it is that we know what information sources are available to natives of a foreign country.
     I am fascinated by the many sources of information.  Discerning the veracity of that information intrigues me.       
     I was raised in a democracy.  Within that democracy, my family, friends, and culture instilled in me the belief that there are channels of government--channels within the community--to address problems.  I witnessed civil service close to home.
     Cynicism about government is not a part of my composition.  Any cynicism I might have is channeled into my votes for candidates with more positive--more constructive organizations.  Any endorsements I give to voting against a candidate, rather than for a candidate with a different view only serve to delay resolution of the problems at hand.  Time is precious.  We may ill afford such delays.  That is not to say that decisions should be made hastily.  Quite to the contrary.  Decisions need to be made with due deliberation.

September 11...1948

     An oft-ask question is, "How will you be commemorating September 11th?"
     I commemorate September 11th with my life.  You see, on September 11, 1948, my parents were married.  While others commemorate the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the people lost, the first responders--I celebrate the wedding of my parents in 1948--63 years ago.
     I commemorate September 11th--with the pursuit of peace and understanding among people--each day.  How?  A cliche? No.
     Among people is not a nebulous term.  I pursue peace and understanding with each individual I meet, know, and love each day.  I am not a Pollyanna.  Not everyone shares my views and preferences on issues and matters large and small.
     I do not claim myself to be a proud American.  I wave no flags.  I wear no pins.  I parade no routes.  I do get choked up on Election Day--on- and off-year elections just the same.  I do get choked up on Inauguration Day.  Party matters not to me.  I am not a proud American.  I am a committed world citizen.
     By definition, I am no patriot--I am not patriotic.  I devote my energies in search of peace and toward understanding, rather than in defense of America, and seeking vengeance, or being vigilant against acts of terror.  I prefer to be vigilant for acts of peace.      
     I seek peace each day with each individual I meet that day.  I seek not complete agreement.  I seek understanding.  Different views, different preferences--different perspectives--invite me to deeper understanding.
     Seeking peace--seeking understanding--is not grandiose.  Peace and understanding are my daily aspirations--one person, one day at a time.
     I commemorate the peace and understanding that was married on September 11, 1948.  Happy 63rd anniversary, Mom and Dad.  Thank you for your example of love--your commitment to peace.

Civic Responsibility

     More and more, as time goes on, I find myself much less ardent in my advocacy for a given cause.  Although if called to label myself politically, I would describe myself as liberal, that does not suffice to describe my perspective.  I am far more ardent an advocate for civility, respect, pragmatism, and civic engagement.
     I am a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota.  As such, I witnessed an irresponsible government shutdown.  Irresponsible--the negotiation strategies employed, rather than any of the facts that resulted in the shutdown warrant irresponsible.  Time elapsed.  Compromise prevailed.  Now, the Minnesota State government is open, and operational now.  I was not affected directly.  I am a friend of a state employee.  I am a citizen of Minnesota.  Yet, on a day-to-day basis, the shutdown did not have a short-term impact on me.
     Civic responsibility.  The debt ceiling negotiations.  I am not an economist.  I do not play one on television.  I am a citizen of the United States.  I am a recipient of SSDI.  Neither of these elements of me may have any part in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Yet, both elements lead me to reflection.
     Many people are heard to say, "throw the bums out!" in relation to officeholders, who vote for a given piece of legislation, or a given political persuasion.  I am not so inclined.  I vote on the basis of the current needs at Election Day, and the needs I perceive for the future.  I do not vote for a given political candidate as a vote against the opposing candidate.  Such an approach does not give anyone the mandate he or she needs to govern.  I do not engage in name-calling with regard to a given officeholder, candidate, or political movement.  To do so dilutes my integrity, credibility, and influence for my convictions.
     Principled pragmatism.
     Typical  of many college students, I was an idealist.  I was a passionate advocate for issues of personal interest, knowledge, and understanding.  Had life been perfect, I would have pursued paid work promoting the awareness of disabilities.
      With time--with the realities of career disappointments, among other factors--I became more of a pragmatist.  College ideals gave way to the need for a job, health insurance, among other things.
      Recently, I have listened with disgust to the individuals engaged in the debt ceiling debate.  Participants are so firmly entrenched in their principles that there is no room for compromise--for pragmatism.
     Principles and pragmatism need not be diametrically opposed.  In fact, they are intimates.  Principles are the starting point from which negotiations regarding any debate.  Yet, at the point that listening, understanding, pragmatism, and compromise are left out of the discourse, principles--however genuinely held they may be--lose their credence.
     Civic Responsibility.  Principles.  Listening.  Understanding.  Listening.  Pragmatism.  Compromise.  Principled Pragmatism.  Civic Responsibility.   These need not be complicated undertakings.  These are worthy of celebration.  When they prevail, we may inhale civility's breath.

Geography of Respect for Life

     I am perplexed by the geography of "respect for life."
     Affirmation seems to come too easily--what is one's positions on abortion, the death penalty, commitment of military forces to quell upheaval, and wars against humanity, as well as support for killing a despot, who orchestrated those wars?  Less immediate, although no less important are those who engage in the birther movement, and political rancor over so many issues--health care, and the federal budget, most notable to me.
     Cries for support of "respect for life" are usually singular proclamations, "I am pro-life," or "I am pro-choice."  Little more needs to be said, or so it seems.  I have never been faced with that question in my own life.  I have not known anyone closely, who has been faced with that situation.
     The death penalty.  I have known no one, who has confronted the death penalty.
     Most poignant to me seems to be the unabashed affirmation of killing despots--Osama Bin Laden, and Gadhafi come to mind.  There seemed to be great satisfaction, and accomplishment felt, when Saddam Hussein was killed.  I may be wrong, but in each of these cases, the satisfaction felt is an affirmation, "By the death of this individual, we have rooted out all evil from our lives.  We shall live in paradise from this day forward," or something to that effect.  This unabashed affirmation is the plateau of Respect for Life's Geography.
    Was there a birther movement prior to the presidency of Barack Obama?  If so, when?  Who was, or were the individual(s) targeted? If birthers were to prove their accusations, how would their priorities regarding the future of our society be changed--advanced?  I am of two minds.
   I have my own beliefs regarding the birther movement.  I shall share them shortly.  Yet, before I do so, I must be clear.  My questions are meant to imply no cynicism.  Are there more constructive means by which to address the doubts as to whether Barack Obama was born in the United States?  Is anyone, who is in the birther movement, proclaiming "respect for life" as one of their values?  Do they offer their thoughts as to how these two are reconciled within their value system?  With all due respect, I have not heard the juxtaposition of these beliefs expounded upon, or explored.
     The health care debate is one that I hope has ended.  I believe essential issues, and questions were at stake.  Yet, the tenor of the debate was not conducive to thoughtful, deliberative discourse.  The decibel level of the debate exceeded my tolerance level.  Guilty though I felt as someone who values my citizenship, my mental health was more important.  I needed to value my own mental health, if I expected anyone else do so. I needed to respect my own life, if I had any hopeful expectation that others might respect their own lives, and the lives of other human beings.
     I do not look forward to the Medicare debate.  Discourse regarding its future--how to strengthen it--is essential.  Yet, I fear that the decibel level will rival that of the health care debate.
     I shudder to use "respect for life," for fear that I am corrupting the phrase to bring integrity to my beliefs.
I pray that my affirmation, "I have a commitment to "respect for life," is understood with the full complexity with which it is lived.
     If profiled in traditional terms, I would be identified as a woman raised as a Universalist, who is now a Catholic.  I am a pro-choice woman, who opposes the death penalty in regard to any criminal offense.  I am a pacifist.  I take no satisfaction in, nor do I understand why it is thought that killing any despot will eliminate evil.  Yet, that profile of my beliefs does not reflect the texture---the complexity--of my commitment to "respect for life."
     I pray each of us who utters, "respect for life" does so with thoughtfulness--with reverence.  May we respect the convictions of others', whose convictions differ from our own.

Free Speech and Name-Calling

     Just now, someone commented on the burning of the Koran.  Evidently, on April 18, 2011, Andrew Ryan--a former English soldier--was sentenced to 70 days in jail for burning the Koran.  The commentator said that he understood, and defended the right of free speech, yet, something to effect that this idiot needed to be stopped from his action of burning the Koran.
     I do believe in the freedom of religion.  As a citizen of the United States, I did not face any action from the American government--state, federal, or local--when I changed my religious affiliation from Universalism/Unitarianism to Christianity.  When I joined the Catholic Church, I did not fear any adverse action from the government.  Concerns I had with regard to my actions--my affirmations--related to individuals, not to the government of my native land.
     I do believe in freedom of speech.  I am enriched by sharing ideas with people, whose ideas differ from my own.  If we are open to being enlightened, both of us will grow from the free exchange of ideas.  I am a native-born U.S. citizen.  I have never been faced with the choice of affirming my allegiance to a country external to my birth.  So, in some ways, I feel less qualified to speak as someone who appreciates fully the right to speak freely--to speak freely without suffering retribution from my government.  Technology is a partner with freedom of speech that makes this blog, and many other blogs viable forms of expression.  I do appreciate that opportunity.  No, it is a guilty pleasure:)
     Yet, as strong as my commitment is, I cannot reconcile the acceptability of name-calling.  I abhor it.  No amount of commitment to free religious belief, or free speech gives license to any name-calling.  It just doesn't.   Whether the name-calling be done to the face of the individual or group being targeted, neither is acceptable.  Neither form of name-calling is moral, just, ethical, or humane.  Many people refer to respect for life, and never consider name-calling to be subject to standards of human decency.   I am a very open-minded, reasonable, and rational individual.  I am open to compromise on most everything else.  Yet, name-calling is not open to compromise.   If I arrive at the precipice of name-calling, then I am being called to make amends with the soon-to-be target of any name-calling.
     If I were to resort to name-calling, then I would be missing the opportunity to transform my venom into passionate advocacy for an issue or individual being denigrated.  I cannot commit myself to name-calling.  I cannot avoid opportunities to serve as an advocate.

A Decibelic, Hyperbolic Fast

     Lent in the Catholic Church is a time of fasting.  Food.  The only form of fasting seems to be food.  With tremendous guilt, I have resisted the admonition to fast.  I felt that to fast for a short period of time with the full knowledge that returning to the old ways defeated the purpose.  My understanding of fasting was to commit to a different long-term behavior that would contribute to living with greater commitment--with greater integrity.
     Yet, I have been offered more palatable forms of fasting to which I may be committed--to which I may will it so.  The U.S. budget debate is one offering of the inspiration to be differently committed.  My objective is to find reasonable, and logical options to participate in the debate.  I do not mean in the form of legislative proposals, or policies.  That is not where my life is centered, such that I could offer any worthy contribution.  As a child, I thought that listening to television news on a religious basis was the solution to be informed, if not directly involved.  When I left the work world, I committed myself to listening to television news as I distracted myself from personal issues beyond my control.
     As the decibel level of debate increases, fasting needs redefinition in my life.  Television news is comfortable white noise.  It does provide a marvelous front row seat to history--to Tahrir Square, most notably.  Condemning all of television news is just as bad as watching news comprised solely of hyperbole, and vitriol.
     Fasting, in my life, will be a commitment to avoid mindless listening to the vitriolic news I identify.  Fasting is a commitment to silence--to intimacy with her.  Fasting is a commitment to music to cleanse my mind of the noise around me--to direct my mind toward more constructive ideas, and perspectives that I may offer.

The Right Questions...Proper Fines...Rehabilitation...

     I confess that I am not a huge sports fan.  I listen for human profiles--human insights--within sports.
     This week, National Basketball Association [NBA] player, Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 for uttering a racial slur at a referee.  NBA President David Stern imposed the fine to convey that the NBA was a family-friendly form of entertainment that would not endorse such behavior--such attitudes.  Criticism has been made regarding the amount of  the fine in proportion to the player's annual salary.
     I pose a different question regarding the offense, and its corresponding fine.  What impact would the imposition of fines have if they required community service relevant to the offense?  Adjustments to the ratio of the fine to the offender's income should be implicit in sentencing standards, or fines assignments standards.
     Community service seems like an easy way out--a soft sentence to impose.  Yet, it does not need to be, if properly imposed--properly administered.
     In the justice system, sentencing is supposed to be commensurate with the proven crime.  Unanimous agreement does not exist regarding the definition of commensurate.  However, that is no excuse for pursuing a definition.
     What might commensurate community service be?  First, it must be based on positive actions to lessen the occurrence of relevant offenses, in this case, hate speech.  Second, three groups must be identified.
     First, to what group, or organization is the offender accountable.  Is it a sports team?  Is it a professional association?  Is it some other institution?
     Second, who were the people incriminated?  Children?  Colleagues?  Adults?  Others?
    Third, to whom is the offender a role model?  Children? Parents?  Pet owners?  Teachers?  Religious leaders?  Others?
     Fourth, what might some commensurate community service be for an athlete?
     Speaking to fans at games at a pre-determined time within the game, and for a specified time period--once in each city played during the season?  Speaking to recruits during the training season for the sport involved?
     These are just two ideas.  I am not beholden to them.  My intent is to spur thought.
     In the U.S. judicial system, there are federal sentencing guidelines, which have been established to ensure consistency, and definitions of commensurate.  It seems that other organizations might take a cue from the U.S. judicial system.
     Kobe Bryant is not the first, nor the last athlete to engage in hate speech.  His offense can be a teaching moment for everyone--the news spotlight is on, and it is up to us to use it.

Government Services--Personal Energy Policy

     Having identified myself in prolific terms, it is important to examine the services, and regulations of government.  How does my profile affect my needs for, and views regarding government services, and regulations.
     I must confess that my views are rooted in deep fear.  I understand the need for debate regarding the organization of and support for Medicare that is imminent.  Knowledge of my own need for it next year leads me to put my head in the sand with cotton balls in my ears.  The forthcoming hyperbole makes me ill.
     I could be the audience to whom politicians will base their positions regarding Medicare.  I do not want to be a part of politicians' Medicare focus group.  I cannot deny my needs.  I will seek what I need, nothing more, and nothing less.  That is my contribution toward a picture of a balanced budget.  My contribution may not be financially balanced, but, it will be balanced in terms of medical necessity.  I purchase private insurance commensurate with my medical need, and financial affordability.
     With regard to Medicare--its future health--we need to take several actions independent of any legislative action.  We need to accept our own aging, and the corresponding needs we may have--needs that are quite likely, however unsavory they may be.
     I do not know how to arm myself further from the imminent hyperbole.  All I may do is to assert logic, reason, and insight, and pray that it resonates somewhere within decision-making bodies.
     I have strong views against military expenditures, as well as support for other government priorities--government investments.  Yet, in the past ten years, I have learned the essence of energy conservation.  No. Not nuclear power, oil, coal, solar power.  I speak of none.  My personal energy.  My life is ruled by a single policy personal energy conservation.  I must not take on advocacy for issues outside of my passion--issues outside of my understanding--issues beyond my individual needs.  I consider myself to be concerned about social justice issues.  Yet, I invest my personal energies in trusting other more effective--more passionate--advocates, who have the knowledge requisite for success.
    May we adopt the policy of personal energy conservation to lessen the rhetoric, increase civility, and improve the quality of decision-making with regard to such vital issues.  If we do not do so, we deserve the quality of decisions that are made, and the tenor that precedes it.  I, for one, do not think we can afford such lavish use of our precious resources.

A Self-Profile...A Pre-Requisite to Government Services

     As a confessed liberal, recent political events call me to reflect on the essence of government in our daily lives.  Yesterday, I reflected on the need for a smaller government--the need to be more self-reliant.  Today, I have the clarity of mind that was absent last night to examine the other side--the need for government in our daily lives.
     Before I may undertake an examination of government services, a profile is essential.  I do not support racial profiling, or profiling that is conducted by others with regard to me.  However, if I am to proclaim any degree of objective--reasonable--examination of government services, I must begin with a profile of who I am.
     Facts serve me best.  I begin with my profile.  I am single. I am a daughter, a sister, an aunt of adult nephews.  I am a citizen of the United States.  I have a birth certificate attesting to my birth in the State of Minnesota.  I am a Caucasian woman.  I am a resident of the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota.   I live in a condominium.  I use elevators each day.  I use mass transit, skyways--elevated walkways--to navigate Minnesota winters.
     I am not a mother.  I do not have any children.  I am not a business owner.  I do not drive. I am not an animal owner.  I do not gamble.  I do not drink--I do not want to cause a seizure.
     It is essential to identify who we are in such a prolific manner, before assessing our positions regarding the role of government in our lives.  Only after we have made such a thorough, specific, and thoughtful profile of ourselves may we proceed.  We are obligated to answer two questions.  A simple, singular answer will not emerge from these questions.  However, our answers are essential in their complexity.
     First, who am I in factual terms?  What are my personal roles in relationship to other people--to my community?  Where do I live?  Where do I work, be that full-time, part-time, or work outside of the paid  workforce?  What services do I need?
     Second, in factual terms, what roles common in relationships, and community do I not play?  What very basic needs do I not need in my daily life?
     Are we willing to undertake such a self-examination?  Is it easier to acquiesce to the prevailing community beliefs, and political positions?  Or is it easier to submit our resignation to others of differing beliefs?
     I believe such a self-examination is essential to being very precise about our needs--all of our needs.  My prayer is that clarity in decision-making, and a commitment to avoid hyperbole would emerge.

Respect. Listen. Negotiate. Compromise. Agree.

     It is quite simple. Agree on one basic principle as the foundation of all negotiations. None of us is guaranteed that we will wake up tomorrow with the same capacities we have today. We are equal partners. None of us is braver due to military service. None of us is less fortunate due to disability, financial status, or any other quality. Each of us is human. Sit down. Listen. Respect one another. Negotiate. Blame is a luxury we can ill-afford. Sit down. Listen. Respect. Negotiate. Compromise. Agree.

     The budget negotiations engender feelings different from moral indignation, or outrage.  Self-righteousness, outrage, and moral indignation siphon off the vital energy necessary to negotiate with reason, logic, and respect.  On a balance beam, this ballerina is left of center.  However, she does see the value of what both sides of this debate are saying.  

     To conservatives, I understand some of what you say.  It is our responsibility to be less dependent upon government, if we are to solve budget deficits.

     I don't know the extent to which I may do that.  Yet, you do lead me to reflect upon what my dependencies are.  What actions am I taking to depend upon the private sector, and spur business in my community?

     What actions have I taken?  Two primary investments stand out.  Long-term care insurance, and long-term disability insurance.  

     I recognize my needs--physical, financial, emotional, psychological, social, and spiritual.  I recognize my social status--not my economic classification.  I am single.  I have cerebral palsy.  I have epilepsy.  I take medication for seizures.  An ankle foot orthotic--a brace, and durable medical equipment--a wheelchair, are undeniable parts of my present, and my future.  These are facts.  My feelings regarding these facts are irrelevant luxuries that I can ill afford.

     Though the daughter of an accountant, I did not understand the practicalities of a balance sheet as deeply as I do today.  With facts, realities, needs, and resources identified, the next logical step is to ask, what actions am I taking, within my capacity to do so, to ensure that I live a high quality life.

     I am single--the youngest of three "children."  Though I am blessed with a loving family, I need to secure resources to ensure a full life.  Thus, long-term care insurance.  That is a contribution toward a future that I have yet to live.

     Cerebral palsy.  Epilepsy.  These two facts did not represent degenerative diseases in my understanding.  Epilepsy is not.  My cerebral palsy is a co-conspirator with my aging body.  My cerebral palsy accelerates my physical needs before they would present themselves to other individuals.  Though not fully aware of, or enthusiastic in embracing my future needs, a little voice of wisdom advocated on my behalf.  The wise, though timid, ballerina tiptoed into a long-term disability policy.

     Long-term care insurance, and long-term disability insurance are hardly glamorous trophies to display.  Yet, they are but two actions taken that will and have lessened my dependence on the government.  I have taken a small part toward lessening some of my dependence on government.

   Another action is more subtle--my intent.  I have no intent to ask for more than I need.  Needing and deserving are not synonymous.  

    In 2012, I will become eligible for Medicare.  I am fully aware of what is medically necessary for my survival.  Much is said of Medicare fraud, the ailing health of the Medicare program.  Yet, little is said of being cognizant of our medical needs versus our medical deservings for lack of a better word.   

   I nurture strong relationships with my family, and friends.  I am engaged in a vital faith community that challenges me to live fully.

     As to my liberal beliefs, my assessment is in different terms.  We do need to present a stronger case for the people we are trying to protect.  We do ourselves a great disservice to speak of those less fortunate than ourselves.  That weakens the entire basis of our beliefs.  Anytime we parade individuals up as poster children for a cause, we provide conservatives with an easy target.  In no way am I saying that the individuals mentioned are not worthy of the relevant services.

   We are not providing a clear picture of who needs the relevant services.  Any one of us may find ourselves in need of the various programs, and services for which we advocate.  Not sometime in the distant future.  Tomorrow.  We may find ourselves in such need tomorrow.  We must broaden the base of who the programs and services are promoted to benefit.  This is not easy.  It is difficult to admit.  It is difficult to demonstrate.  

    We must dispense with a we-versus-they, or us-versus-them model of policymaking.  As long as we preserve an us-versus-them policymaking model, it is the quality not the financial figures of our budget that will be in a state of deficiency.

    Each of us is responsible to make an honest accounting of our needs, our resources, our actions, and then return to our outstanding needs to settle this deficit.  We must dispense with bravery, and less fortunate than in order to center ourselves on the balance beam.

International Atomic Energy Agency

     Fifty individuals in Japan are working to ensure that one of the nuclear reactors is contained.  At least, that is my understanding.  Tonight, a commentator familiar with nuclear power issues, which I am not, asked where the International Atomic Energy Association was in managing this situation--this dire problem.
     My question is different.  If you are familiar with my thinking, that is of no surprise:)  Yet, what is my question.
     Who makes up the International Atomic Energy Association?  When was the IAEA created?  Where is it headquartered?
    There are 151 member nations that comprise the IAEA.  It was created in 1957.  It is headquartered in Vienna, Austria.  The organization is guided by a 35-member nation Board of Governors.  The Board of Governors include countries from each occupied continent.
     Proceeding alphabetically, the member nations from Asia from 2010-2011 are: Ajerbijan, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, and Singapore.
     Australia is serving on the Board of Governors currently.  It has been a member of the IAEA since its founding in 1957.     
     For the 2010-2011 period, the European Board of Governors members are:   Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  
     Finally, Canada, and the United States are serving on the Board of Governors.  Both Canada and the United States were founding members of the IAEA.
      This may seem to be boring information.  It may not be exciting.  But, it is essential if we are to have anywhere approaching a full understanding of world affairs, and global relationships.
     My sense has been to think that the IAEA was one monolith, rather than a global consortium.
     Of concern should be the status of North Korea.  Although it was one of the founding members in 1957, North Korea withdrew its membership in the IAEA in 1994.  It is highly unlikely that under the current leadership in North Korea, that their view toward toward the IAEA will change.  Yet, when Kim Jong-il is no longer in power, will his successor take a different stance?  When a successor comes to governance, then working toward that goal seems worthy of consideration.
     It is worthy of note that Libya, Bahrain, the Ivory Coast, and Saudi Arabia are all members of the IAEA.  There is 
Similarly, both India and Pakistan are members of the IAEA.  These two countries have vast differences in their relations with one another.  Yet, those differences have not prevented them from joining forces with the IAEA.
     The price of not being aware of the other countries in our world is steep.  Afghanistan, Egypt, lran, Iraq, Libya, and Tunisia are examples of a lack of understanding the nuances of the countries--their people, ideologies, and cultures.  
     In addition to being aware of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are other consortia worthy of our understanding.  I will explore them in future postings.  My aim is to identify what countries are members of multiple world partnerships, so as to understand how world peace may be furthered in our time.

Global Information's Starting Point

     I am fascinated by the many sources of information.  Discerning the veracity of that information intrigues me.  I was raised in a democracy.  Within that democracy, my family, friends, and culture instilled in me the belief that there are channels of government--channels within the community--to address problems.  I witnessed civil service close to home.
     Cynicism about government is not a part of my composition.  Any cynicism I might have is channeled into my votes for candidates with more positive--more constructive organizations.
     Any endorsements I give to voting against a candidate, rather than for a candidate with a more constructive view, only serve to delay resolution of the problems at hand.  Time is precious.  We may ill afford such delays.  That is not to say that decisions should be made hastily.  Quite to the contrary, decisions need to be made with due deliberation.

One Voice

     Today I learned that my words have traveled around the world, without my ever leaving St. Paul, Minnesota in the United States.  I reached out, and my words reside with one person in Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Ghana, Hong Kong, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, and Vietnam.
     That is humbling.  Not so much because of any grand message I offer, but, more because technology has enabled us to touch one another beyond our physical reach--that is humbling.
     Without being embraced, technology is no spectacle worth celebrating.  Yet, when we stop....look around, and listen to our own hearts, we may learn what we believe--what we wonder.  Technology welcomes our beliefs' wonderings--our curiosity's questions.
     I do not know by name the world citizens my words have touched.  I never may know the depth of the impressions that I left.  Yet, to leave any impression is a beginning.  More often than not, we hear of peoples--of countries--who do not listen to one another.  It may be they do listen to one another, but, if they do, they do not discover a way to co-exist.
     Croatia?  I confess that my one-time sharp ear to world events has dulled to conflict.  I do not know how to
     What do I know of Denmark?  One short stop through Copenhagen's airport many years ago...one week hosting a Danish social worker during his visit to Minnesota....these are the bird's eye views I have had of Denmark.
     What of France do I know?  A bratty teenager's short visit is my limited view.
     Of Ghana?  To my chagrin, I know only that she is located in Africa.  Ghana joined the United Nations in 1957.  But, of people, of the culture, I know nothing.
      What do I know of Hong Kong?  A distant relative lived in Hong Kong at one time.  Yet, all that his experience left me to believe was that its pace is fast.  That is telling of little--at least little of depth.
       Sweden.  Of Sweden, I know little.  She is a Scandanavian country.  As such, my Norwegian roots fill me with a fondness for the progressive perspectives toward living that Swedes share.  Yet, I am chagrin to say I know little.
       Russia.  Ah, Russia.  I have come close to losing a family member to Russia several times.  No, I am speaking of no threat to bodily safety.  Quite to the contrary.  In 1967, Russia was just beyond Alaska on the map.  I swear.  Long before we had heard of Sarah Palin, Russia captured the imagination of  family members.  Five trips have ensued over forty years.  Russian love remains a family passion.

Good Citizens

[Hester] feared that Catholicism would limit her intellectual horizons and require her to shut down her reason...."I doubt if your interests get less intellectual as you become more deeply involved in the Church, but...the intellect will take its place in a larger context and will cease to be tyrannical, if it has been."  In her opinion, a "tyrannical intellect was a danger; instead the mind serves best "when its anchored in the word of God."  
     The Abbess of Andalusia: Flannery O'Connor's Spiritual Journey by Lorraine V. Murray
     Raised to believe that all truth was confined to reason, I read this passage with great interest.  A younger Patty struggled to understand this seeming dichotomy between intellect and faith in God.  
     Today I read of the "tyrannical intellect," the mind, and, "being anchored in the word of God," and I find myself understanding faithfully that this is true.  Yet, I am perplexed as to how to convey its truth.  It may be that it is not the words of the mind that are the conveyors of O'Connor's words.  Presenting an offering of words is far easier.  But, the true conveyor of O'Connor's words is the offering of our life's example--the example of our daily living.  
      Many years ago, I was counseled, "Don't leave your mind outside the door of the church."  That advice was rooted in experiencing religion practiced by rote recitation.  I understand, treasure, and strive to live by that advice--by not leaving my mind outside the door of the church.  I seek out people, whose lives exemplify that mental engagement.                                                      Yet, as much as I treasure that advice, more is called for to live with spiritual engagement.  What is that?  I know it when I experience it in people I meet, know, and love.
     If we are to not leave our minds outside the door of the church, then what?  What are we called to convey from our inner sanctum?  How may we transform the Spirit of our inner sanctum outside the door of the church?  

Good citizens are engaged in their geographical community.   

Are we willing to be good citizens of our Faith?