Why?

Raçes Neuves

2011-05-23T21:13:00.000-07:00

En antropologisk studie om ett folkslag du nästan garantera inte har hört talas om förut.

Jag hittade nyligen en fantastisk (om något föråldrad) bok om ett folk som franska upptäcktsresande hittade på 1700-talet i Afrika. Mitt i Kongos djungel hittade fransmännen, utsända av Louise XIV, ett mystiskt folk som de kallade Raçes Neuves (fastän det inte uttalas så på franska brukar man på svenska säga RAX NEFS). Följande är ett axplock från fransmännens upptäckter.

Raçes Neuvesfolket kännetecknades av en ovanligt religiös livsstil där hela samhället styrdes av ett kastsystem med prästkasten överst. Prästkasten bar till vardags på utmärkande vita kläder och tillfrågades alltid i de flesta beslut såväl personliga som offentliga. Uttalanden från prästerna betraktades som nästintill ofelbara, och den som satte sig emot prästerna betraktades av hela samhället som demoniska, ovälkomna och stöttes ut. Då sade man att sådana människor hörde till adnoul ronná – en benämning på alla saker och människor som är av ondo. Raçes Neuvesfolket betraktade människan som i regel avskyvärd, oren och i ett ohälsosamt tillstånd. Hur man redde ut tillståndet visste bara prästerna, och berättade bara mot betalning. Kroppen var ytterst oren, och prästerna kunde tack vare sina andliga liv – ett liv som de ansågs leva frigjord från kroppen – göra kroppen ren och acceptabel inför gudarna.

Ett exempel på prästernas roll var att prästerna tillkallades för att göra religiösa riter då ett barn hade fötts. Kvinnor uppmuntrades att föda sina barn, om möjligt, inne i templen. Barnen inspekterades regelbundet under hela barndomen av prästerna. Fransmännen skriver i sina anteckningar att de var förvånade över hur lite respekt samhället hade för prästernas betjänter i templet – varken prästerna eller folket som kom till templet verkade vilja veta av tempelbetjänter, fastän det mesta i de religiösa riterna utfördes av tempelbetjänterna.

Prästerna tillfrågades även i brottsmål att göra uttalanden om den anklagades andliga tillstånd – om huruvida den anklagade till exempel hörde till adnoul ronná, d.v.s. var en person som man inte kunde lita på. Själva var prästerna oantastliga i rättsfrågor och kunde mycket sällan ställas till svars. Om mot all förmodan en präst skulle bli dömd för ett brott klev ändå en av byns rikaste män in och betalade botsumman åt prästen. Samma person gick sedan runt och hämtade ersättning för sina utgifter från folk i byn, som ansåg att det var deras trosplikt att bidra till prästens kostnader.

Prästerna valde med jämna mellanrum ut lämpliga prästkandidater som fick gå en lång initieringsprocess, under de övriga prästernas ledning. Ofta ingick prästernas egna barn i prästkasten. Teknisk sett ärvdes inte prästämbetet, men det var så gott som. Ibland kunde barnen från de lägre kasterna också få påbörja initieringen. Processen kunde ta uppåt tio år, och involverade religiösa riter där man tog hand om döda kroppar och läste hemliga dokument skrivna på främmande språk. Under initieringsprocessen indoktrinerades präst-kandidaterna till att alltid hata och kämpa mot folket adnoul ronná.

Den vitklädda prästkastens styre över samhället var absolut, och berodde för sin fortlevnad på att folket uppgav regelbundna offer till prästerna. Prästfamiljer bodde i regel i mycket större hus, kunde anställa personliga betjänter, och kunde, utöver en fru, få ha flera bihustrur. Raçes Neuvesfolket ansåg att prästkasten utgjorde en högre tillvaro. I allmänhet ansågs prästerna vara av högre moralisk karaktär. En präst ljög aldrig, svek aldrig, ville aldrig någon något ont – så trodde i stort sett alla. Barnen till prästerna styrdes inte av samma regler som alla andra, utan ansågs ha från sin födsel en andlig tillvaro som var otillgänglig för andra. På grund av den starka religiösa tron som folket hade om prästernas ofelbarhet kunde prästerna utnyttja sin position för att lura folket och gynna sina egna familjer, vilket ofta förekom.

Raçes Neuvesfolket var i allmänhet mycket misstänksamma mot främlingar och betraktade dem som oandliga. De som var främlingar, som var adnoul ronná ansågs vara mindre moraliska, ohälsosamma, och Raçes Neuvesfolket uttryckte ofta en rädsla för att främlingar skulle ha dåligt inflytande på deras samhälle. Det ända sättet för en främling att bli fullt accepterad bland Raçes Neuvesfolket var att lyckas övertala prästerna att låta honom påbörja prästinitieringen och själv bli präst. Var man präst då spelade det ändå ingen roll var man kom ifrån.

Samtidigt som det fanns en så påtaglig xenofobi tyckte Raçes Neuvesfolket lika mycket synd om främlingar i allmänhet. Det var synd om de som inte hade tillgång till Raçes Neuvesfolkets präster. Därför kunde främlingar ibland tillåtas bo i Raçes Neuvesfolkets territorium, men då bara om de bodde för sig själv på utkanten av byn. Det absolut sämsta ett barn från Raçes Neuvesfolket kunde göra var dock att gifta sig med en främling och dyrka den främlingens gud – då ansåg ens grannar och familj att ens barn hade blivit adnoul ronná och oftast stöttes barnet bort från familjen.

De franska besökarna skrev vid sitt andra besök – ca 15 år efter det första besöket – att Raçes Neuvesfolket började ge stora mängder värdesaker till en viss grupp inom prästkasten, Amraf.

Amrafprästerna erkände fritt för fransmännen att de kunde tjäna stora mängder pengar just på grund av att Raçes Neuvesfolket var så rädda för att höra till de demoniska adnoul ronná. Folk var rädda för hur samhället skulle se ut ifall prästerna inte vägledde dem. Då kunde prästerna utnyttja den rädslan för egen vinning.

Amrafprästerna bar också på de utmärkande vita kläder och sålde olika substanser i templen, substanser som ibland orsakade hallucinationer och ibland gjorde den som åt dem sjuka under långa perioder. Ibland hittade Amrafprästerna på historier om demoner, sjukdomar och plågor som skulle drabba Raçes Neuvesfolket om de inte köpte mer av substanserna. Fast ingen – inte ens fransmännen själva – visste vad substanserna var gjorda av. Varje ny skrämseltaktik fungerade med lika mycket verkan som den innan.

De äldsta i byarna såg alltid till att straffa den som försökte producera dessa substanser själva. Endast amrafprästerna hade rätt att tillverka eller sälja substanserna. Samtidigt hotade amrafprästerna vanligt folk med att bli utskämda offentligt om man inte köpte substanserna. De hade inte enbart ett monopol på att tillverka och sälja substanserna utan kunde mer eller mindre kräva att folk betalade för dem oavsett om de ville eller inte.

Till sin hjälp hittade amrafprästerna på demoner som de påstod skulle plåga barn om inte föräldrarna köpte substanserna. De hävdade att den som inte offrade mycket av sina djur och skörd i templen var en dålig förälder och att deras barn säkert skulle drabbas av demonerna. Fransmännen märkte en förändring i byarna sedan det första besöket; att folk hade börjat ägna sig så mycket åt tempeloffer och att bruka dessa substanser. De äldre byborna anmärkte att en hel del av folkets kultur – barnuppfostran och andra seder – glömdes helt eller delvis bort. Barnen var i allmänhet otrygga, bråkade mer och saknade tillhörighet, märkte de gamla. Barnen fick ofta gå utan förnödenheter eftersom all mat och värdesaker hade offrats i templen. Föräldrarna såg barnens gråt och gnäll som ett tecken på att demonerna hade kommit och drabbat barnen i alla fall – trots de många offren. Då offrade man ännu mer, och fransmännen skriver att ett flertal av de äldre byborna höll med om att det var mycket svårt att bryta den onda cirkeln.

Fransmännen upptäckte tidigt i sitt tredje besök att vissa präster enbart verkade syssla med att lära ut praktiska konster som till exempel att bygga en hydda. Varje gång en ny hydda byggdes tillkallades prästen för att inspektera att hyddan var byggd enligt gudarnas föreskrifter. De flesta hyddor såg således nästan identiska ut, med några mindre stilistiska ändringar. Detsamma gällde djurskötsel och vägbygge. Prästerna ägde rätt att godkänna eller beordra folk att göra annorlunda, och lyddes utan invändning.

Fransmannen Jean Baptist de Jugeote skriver i sina memoarer om långa samtal med Raçes Neuvesfolket. Han slutar aldrig att förundras av folkets totala tilltro och lydnad till prästkasten. I diskussioner om allt från de viktigaste till de mest oväsentliga saker hänvisade man till prästernas uttalanden. Eget förnuft kunde man inte lita på: bara prästerna. de Jugeote erkänner att prästerna i allmänhet var välutbildade och i många frågor vägledde folket på ett bra sätt, men han skriver att ingen i Europa verkar ha sådant totalt tankemässigt slaveri gentemot sina ledare som Raçes Neuvesfolket. Om en präst hade sagt att det var på ett sätt, så avgjordes debatten, oavsett om ämnet handlade om något som alla borde kunna veta av erfarenhet. Om ett vardagligt föremål hade ett namn på den lokala dialekten och någon annan påstod att det kallades för något annat i prästernas dialekt ansågs prästernas dialekt vara normgivande.

de Jugeote märkte att eftersom prästernas religiösa uttalanden var så normgivande så levde Raçes Neuvesfolket på ett tämligen homogent sätt i många aspekter. Även när han reste från by till by märkte han att alla gjorde likadant. En dag i veckan till exempel var avsedd för att äta en viss sorts mat, och den traditionen följde de flesta familjer på grund av sin starka religiösa tro. På den dagen samlades familjen på kvällen framför husgudarna som stod på ett bord mitt i husen. Två av de viktigaste husgudarna hete Ras Idnaeke Vet och Ram Lif. Man satt i tystnad för att höra gudarnas röst. Raçes Neuvesfolket trodde att om de lyssnade tillräckligt mycket och tittade tillräckligt länge på sina husgudar kunde de själva en dag uppnå gudomen. I Raçes Neuvesfolkets hederssystem ansågs man vara mycket framgångsrik och lyckad ju flera husgudar man hade samlat hemma.

Maten var i allmänhet en stor del av Raçes Neuvesfolkets religion. Vissa prästers uppgift gick ut enbart på att berätta för Raçes Neuvesfolket vad de fick lov att äta och när. En person som åt rätt mat var god och from, medan den som åt fel mat var ond och omoralisk. Flera av husgudarna ansågs vara matens väktare (en hette, till exempel Anittam), och folket trodde att man uppnådde en högre andlighet i sitt ätande ju mera man mediterade på dessa husgudar. Då kunde man i sitt eget liv uppfylla matgudarnas förväntningar och bli välsignad. Folket välsignade sin mat när de lagade den genom att säga ”Anittam lagar maten på det här viset” och vissa rätter uppkallades efter den husguden som i forntiden hade uppfunnit rätten. Man fick ett mycket gott anseende i byn om ens mat ansågs vara andlig, om den låg i linje med husgudarnas förväntningar.

En underkast bland prästerna sysslade med att lära ut konsten att tillverka kläder, och sysslade enbart med att komma på nya tekniker för att göra olika klädföremål, smink eller smycken. De som tillverkade kläder fick betala en del av sina inkomster till prästerna, och den som tillverkade egna kläder ansågs vara adnoul ronná: omoralisk och oandlig.

Kläderna hade en stark religiös betydelse. Husgudarna kläddes ofta i en specifik sorts kläder, och om man ville åkalla den husgudens välsignelse försökte man efterlikna gudens klädsel. Den som uppenbarligen var klädd på ett sätt som verkade likt husgudarna ansågs vara en from och pålitlig person – i hederssystemet kunde man nästan inte göra bättre än att äta och klä sig som husgudarna.

Fransmannen de Jugeote skriver att trots den starka misstänksamheten mot alla främmande hyste Raçes Neuvesfolket den högsta misstänksamhet mot sig själva. Om man lärde sig ett ord från ett främmande språk använde man hellre det ordet än det inhemska. Man ansågs vara en from och andlig person om man kunde många olika språk, men ett språk föredrogs framför alla och det var amrafprästernas - Tjilingij. Vissa språk sågs dock som löjliga eller farliga – språk som Tjinadspråket respektive Kibbaradialekten. Raçes Neuvesfolket benämning på sitt eget folk var synonym med löjlig, gammaldags, pinsam och oklok. Det sämsta man kunde vara var adnoul ronná men det nästsämsta man kunde vara var en som kallades med den benämningen som Raçes Neuvesfolket hade för sig själv.

Därför utsåg Raçes Neuvesfolket bland annat präster, de rikaste och de som visade särskild fysisk styrka till att representera dem, och föra deras talan. Resonemanget var allmänt vedertaget: vi vanliga människor är i allmänhet dåliga och ruttna och måste bli som prästerna. Samtidigt var man övertygad om att hur man än försökte kunde man aldrig uppnå samma status. Den första gången fransmännen besökte byarna gömde sig alla inomhus tills prästerna hade kommit ut för att möta besökarna – det var ovärdigt att en gäst skulle få se en av det vanliga folket först. Raçes Neuvesfolket var stolta och xenofobiska men stoltheten berodde på att de hade en så andlig prästklass i sitt samhälle och inte på att folket i allmänhet ansågs vara goda. Man var övertygad om att inget folk på jorden hade sådana heliga präster, men inget annat folk led av en så oduglig allmänhet.

Till mångas stora förvåning valdes en av fransmännen till kung över Raçes Neuvesfolket och hans avkomma regerar än idag, fast i en alltmer symbolisk roll. Nyligen har man upptäckt den sista dagboken som de Jugeote skrev. Där avslöjar han att ett flertal av namnen och orden hos Raçes Neuvesfolket blir lättare att förstå om man uttalar dem baklänges.

Om man till exempel uttalar Raçes Neuves baklänges blir det alltså Svenskar, och om man uttalar adnoul ronná baklänges blir det annorlunda. Husgudarnas namn såsom Ras Idnaeke Vet Ram Lif och Anittam blir tevekändisar, filmar och Mat Tina – de är alltså husgudarna som alla vill efterlikna. Den veckodagen man sätter sig tyst framför husgudarna och äter särskild mat är alltså fredagsmyset. Jugeote är franska ordet för sunt förnuft. Tjilengij är English - engelska, medan tjinadspråket är danish eller danska och kibbaraspråket är arabic eller arabiska. Tjilengij (engelska) används mer och mer av vanligt folk därför att alla verkar tycka att det töntigaste man kan vara är svensk.

Prästerna i berättelsen ovan är läkare och övriga vetenskapsmän såsom ingenjörer och tekniker eller farmaceuter – deras speciella kläder är alltså vita rockar. Templen där kvinnor uppmanas föda sina barn är sjukhusen och amrafprästerna blir farma (läke-medelsbolag).

Och du har just läst en beskrivning av moderna Sverige skriven ur samma ensidiga arroganta och intoleranta perspektiv som jag upplever att det moderna sekulära svenska samhället har gentemot alla samhällen som inte anses ha evolverat till samma nivå som det svenska. Tillika alla som tänker själv, kommer från utlandet eller tror på Gud i större utsträckning än vad som är tillåtet av svenska kyrkan.

Jag vill med min låtsasantropologi ställa frågan - vad är religion egentligen? Är det bara rädsla för helvetet eller räknas också rädslan för att vara annorlunda? Vad är fundamentalismen? Är det när man förkastar allt som inte överensstämmer med ens religiösa bok, eller räcker det att man avvisar alla sätt att uppfatta livet som inte börjar med det kvantifierbara och kemiska, med en doktorsavhandling eller nobelpris?

Vem är det som bestämmer vad som är religiöst beteende? Vem är egentligen förtryckt? Kvinnorna i muslimska familjer, kristna som gifter sig tidigt, eller barnen i diagnosfixerade och materialistiska Sverige?

Jag hoppas att flera upptäcker såsom jag har gjort att acceptans av den folkliga, jordnära, icke-tillrättalagda sidan hos ens egen kultur är början till att kunna på ett mindre ytligt sätt kunna acceptera och njuta av mångkulturen. Kanske är ”svensk” inte det töntigaste man kan vara. Kanske behöver man inte läsa på Chalmers för att vara klok. Kanske har klassamhällets Sverige ändå mycket att lära sig om mänsklighet från andra länder – sådant som inte låter sig uttryckas i matematiska formler.

This is where I live!

2011-02-14T00:56:00.000-08:00

View Larger Map

Last two days in Romania

2010-08-20T09:54:00.000-07:00

Well, we might as well get it out of the way ... big news everyone: I'm a klutz. Not just a bit of a klutz. I left Sibiel one day too early, at 5:30 in the morning, and when I dropped the car off at the airport at 11 it was then that I realized - watching the car-rental guy writing the date - that I had packed up and come to the airport one day too early. Can you believe it?

So I got a cheap hotel room in Timisoara, and I took a nap.

I am mortified that I klutzed away a whole day that I could have spent in Sibiel, especially considering that the froggies (french tourists) left today, and it would have been a day of peace and quiet around the homestead. Instead I'm sitting in Segafredo, an over-priced foreign invader of a café-bar on the main square of Timisoara, listening to head-ache-inducing techno (along with the other two patrons in the place) all because they have free wireless and I'm a kutz.

But it wasn't a total wash: I managed to go to vespers at the cathedral (below) which is right across the street from my hotel. Fantastic.

Here follows the final photo-essay for this trip. This time it's all about Sibiel.

They day started with Matins at the local convent. We walked into the middle of the akathist (we, in this case, was me and the grandma of the kids saying at Adriana's boarding house). Dispite the name (not that it's of any consequence - we all have different traditions) the nun who was reading the akathist was kneeling in front of the icon of Mary. So there were three of us in total - me, grandma, and the nun. The other nuns weren't there for the time being. It was a simple service without a priest, and exactly what I needed to start the day.

I picked up Cami (btw - if you're tempted to think it's pronounced so as to rhyme with Tamie you're wrong - it's pronounced like Kah-me - just so you know) in town and we headed out to an outdoor museum of peasant houses. That's right. They have moved different types of houses from all over Romania that are typical of different regions, and you can see how poeople lived back in the day - before plumbing or electricity. It's fascintating and huge - I only had time for at a taste (three hours). I didn't even see half of it. But that leaves some for next time. This is the view across the lake that is in the middle of the park.

This cabin shows the simple furnature, yet fantastic woven fabrics that are traditional in Romanian. They used woven cloth to decorate. Later we saw a girl weaving. Which brings me to the next picture: the children. On this particular day there were children and teenagers stationed all around the park at different cabins, performing traditional crafts (sewing, carving, painting icons, weaving etc). They were all wearing folk costumes. We were told that there was a sort of national Olympics of arts and crafts, and the winners were given the opportunity to spend the day showing their skills to the tourists at the park. I don't know what craft these children were doing, but they were cute. We asked to take a picture, and their teacher hearded them into a group photo.

That's when smart-alec Herman (me) said (through the interpretor, Cami), "Don't smile!" "It's absolutely forbidden to smile!"

One or two of them got it (i.e. they were supposed to burst out giggling with uncontainable laughter), but the other ones totally didn't get it, and they actually tried their hardest not to smile. You can see the one girl nudging the other girl's shoulder - telling her to stop smiling. On the one hand it was a flop, but on the other hand it was a big win, because I have this funny story.
Here's the girl weaving. Cami and I were speculating on the nitty-gritty of the weaving, in English, not considering that this girl was old enough to speak English and understand us. She finally interrupted our conversation to answer the questions we had not asked her, but each other.
This cabin has one large (rustic) roof over one open kitchen space, situated in between two rooms that have ceilings. There isn attic space above each of the rooms. BTW - this is the picky picky short-list of photos. There will be a more exhaustive collection on Flickr soon.
So after the folk-museum, it was time to enter the great and noble Hermannstadt. That's the German name for Sibiu. Why does Sibiu have a German name, you might ask. It's because the Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled over Transylvania for several decades before it was finally reunited with Romania after the first word war. Many many cities have German (and Hungarian) names. This was a fortified city (before the Austro-Hungarians), and these towers are some of the remaining parts of the fortifications. Trade guilds would finance and maintain towers along the fortifications, and in return they had access to the towers as storage places in peace times.

This is the view from where we ate lunch. Behind the buildings you can see the tower of the Evangelical church (Lutheran). Having been controlled by an Austrian dynasty, the city had, of course, to have churches for the Protestant German merchants who came to live in the city. There is a reformed church down the street too.

The little ventilation windows punctuating the roofs of the houses are of particular interest. These are called the "eyes of the city". Cami explained to me that when they used to hold public executions in the main square, the women of the city were forbidden to watch. But they used to climb up in the attics and watch anyway, and you can see why the windows got their name. Anyone could be watching you and you wouldn't be able to tell.

Larger cities in Romania are a perfect blend of the delightfully quaint and well-preserved beside the neglected and tired. A perky coating of paint is doing all it can to fight off the sullen decay. It is not alltogether apparent who will win, but the flowers are making a silent protest on behalf of the paint.

This is called the lyars bridge. No, really. I'm telling the truth. It is.

It's famous, apparently (which is true too). Old ladies used to get thrown off it when their sorcerous predictions and profecies didn't come true, and they were thereby proved to be witches. Which is interesting, because if there is anything that Harry Potter has taught us it is that a true witch actually can predict the future. Anyway, no one gets thrown off it nowdays.

And after a long (hot!!) walk we reached what for me is always the most important attraction: the church. This is the Holy Trinity Cathedral, the seat of the Metropolitan of Sibiu, right across from the Divinity Faculty.
And here we have probably the most striking icon in the church (actually outside inside the top of the archway leading into the church). It says, "For you have decorated the sky with stars and by your angels you have enlightened, oh Creator of all ..."

Why does the Eagle have to heads? Press the link if you're curious.

These are some of the amazing icons at the church. Take special note of King David and Bathsheba in the one below. I've never seen an icon of that story in an Orthodox Church. Actually never anywhere. Underneath the scene it says "Psalm 50: Have mercy on me, oh God, according to Thy great mercy, and according the multitude of Thy compassions blot out mine iniquity ..."

I spent the evening packing and getting ready (unnecessarily alas! Why can't I just read the itinerary!). And I managed to arrange a Skype call between mom and Adriana, with Nelu and Catalin looking in briefly.

It's been a fantastic trip, and it's going to take me some time to digest everything. Romanians don't have it easy - at least most of them. The villages are simple. There are TVs, but in the same house there might not being indoor plumbing. There are computers, but a car is a real luxury, and a month's paycheck is delivered on a stretcher, panting and begging to be fed.

There are societal illnesses, a lack of coordination and general dismayal at the failure of the leaders. But there is at the same time hope and determination, and I am not writing a eulogy but a half-time summary.

I don't think I can do the kind of hard work they do. It's the number of hours, and the smallness of the light at the end of the long tunnel. They do things I can't do. For anyone who is tempted to think that America invented hard work and sticktoitiveness, a quick remedy can be found among the establishments like Adriana's and Nelu's boarding house which has been built (literally) from the groud up since the fall of communism.

This is where sticktoitiveness was born before it immigrated to America. Which brings me back to why I came in the first place; my roots.

If you go trapsing across the Transylvanian folliage in pursuit of fulfillment and meaning in the courtyards of distant relatives you are likely to be disappointed. I didn't expect to find that. I expected to find distant relatives.

This trip could have been facebook on drugs. When I started on facebook (like most other people, probably) I expected to re-start old friendships with hundreds of people. Facebook can't do that. We still live in different countries and have separate lives.

But I was humbled by the generosity and hospitality of Doina's and Adriana's family. I got to know them a bit, and I am determined to come back. Modest expectations bore fruitful and living results. I really feel like we're family.

I am really smitten by the experience of being in a country where nine out of ten people (that's a statistic I pulled out of thin air - it just feels that way) belong to the same Christian tradition as I do. This is a place where the cathedrals hold morning and evening services (and probably a host of other services) every day. In Sweden most parishes are lucky if they manage to organize one service a week. For such ubiquity you need staff, resources, and laymen who are interested in coming. It wasn't packed, this evening, but on Friday, at 6pm, I'd say we were close to 100 people, of all ages. There's a morning service tomorrow at 7:30, and you can bet I'll be there.

Let's just say it's a vision. These last pictures are from the cathedral here in Timisoara, and the last ones from Romania

Maybe.

Credits:

Thanks so much to:

Ramona for helping me get in touch with everyone, especially an interpretor,

Radu for guiding me around Arad, and interpreting,

Nelu, Doina and Letitia for lots and lots of food, and for showing me the monastery,

Camelia for working late nights and long days interpreting,

Adriana, Nelu and Catalin, for room and board, and for some precious gifts,

Mom, for saving the letters from the 80's and 90's without which I wouldn't have found my way here,

and thanks to the little old man who gave me a loaf of bread on my first day here. And many others. It's been a great trip.

Romania day 4/5 (the slightly longer version ... hahahah)

2010-08-19T08:22:00.000-07:00

So for the more intrepid of my minions of followers this is the long version. Buckle up.

There are supposed to be pictures with this entry. Lots of them. As a matter of fact I wrote this looking at them - about eighty five or so (and Tamie, before you get on your high-horse about me not being selective about my pictures, bear in mind I have over 800 pictures now, so be quite. You know you love me.) - thinking this would be something of a photo-essay. If you want to see the pictures, open this address in another window, beside this one, and follow along. Otherwise, just read, imagine, and go look at the pictures later. Or do whatever you want.

We begin our journey ... I began my journey ... on Monday morning; driving from Arad to Sibiu. Don't rush to get out your map. I'll help you. Arad is in the far western corner of Romania and Sibiu is in the middle. As you drive you pass by a long mountain range to the south, and a small clup of mountains to the north; through a large valey. The drive might only have taken 4 1/2 or 54 hrs, but I stopped to take all the pictures you're now going to see. Your welcome.

The first one is of the icons above the door to a church in a village outside of Arad. The church was locked ... actually most of the churches are locked. Unfortunately people steal otherwise. So on the rare occasions I made it inside one of these village churches I considered myself privileged. I promised pictures of sunflowers earlier. Here they are. This is what much of the countryside looks like in Transylvania; pastoral, full of vegitation, and rolling. I also found sheep tended by what seemed to be an unambitious shepherd. He was reclining when I stopped my car to take a picture of his sheep. He regarded me with disinterest and went back to whatever daydreams he was entertaining previously. Beside rolling hills and vegitation another common element of the countryside is monuments like this one, with crosses; usually built in memory of someone.

When I got to Lipova, the first proper city on the way between Arad and Sibiu, I missed my exit and found myself driving along a terrible road parallel with the river Mures. I was on the south side, but pointed in the right direction. When I stopped to take this picture I asked a man on the side of the road if I was going the right way to get to the next town called Deva. He said, "yes and no. You'll get there but the road is very bad, and the highway that is better maintained is on the other side of the river. Go back to Lipova and get back on the highway. So I did. Which is when I encountered the large Catholic monastery. Outide the monuments were inscribed in German and Hungarian ¨... not Romanian. This is definitely a relic of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which ruled Transylvania for a period that ended with the first world war. Inside the church couldn't have been more Western European; frescoes and statues that could have been made by Michaeolangelo, a balcony/pulpet, an organ. I thought I was in another country for a moment. I stopped for lunch in a delightful little village along the way (the name of which I have subsequently forgotten). The haystacks are so typical of Transylvania, I wanted to stop at every field and get pictures. But the last pictures that I did take that day were of this church on the side of the road with the traditional Transylvanian roofing. It reminds me of Snusmumriken, if you know who that is. If you don't ... look it up. I don't know.

The next day I picked up my translator Cami (whose real name is Camelia but she doesn't like being called that) in Sibiu (about 30 minutes drive from Sibiel) and we headed for Petelca. The river Mures runs like a vein in between a mountain range, and a range of hills, going north-to-south. It flows south from the city of Aiud to th city where the river turns west, called Alba Julia. We were going north, so we passed Alba Julia and crossed over to the east side of the river. Right next to the river, about half way between those two cities, is the unassuming village of Petelca. The hills are full of topsoil and thick vegitation, and small streams that feed into the river. We found out later that the preferred way of driving to Petelca is from the north, because the roads are infinetly better. Petelca is, as it were, at the end of the good road that comes in from the north.

On the south side of Petelca is a gravel trail unfit for the most robust of tractors. I wasn't sure if my rental car was going to forgive me. I'm still not sure. But we managed to get there somehow. And we knocked on the door of the only Buturean family I found in the phone book, and told them our tale (we - that's me and the interpretor). Sure enough - these are our relatives. The old lady Virginia was married to the son of the brother of my great grandfather George. George used to write home regularly but when he got old and couldn't see they lost touch. The last contact they had was when one Eleana sent them pictures of George, herself as a child, and Sofia. Eleana is my great aunt whom everyone always called Helen. Same, same, but different. And she sent pictures of George from the year he died - so it must have been not long after he died. So that basically settled it. I had found them. Virgil, Virginia's son, introduced us to his cousin, Jacob Buturean. And after a walk around their garden and orchard, we had the privilege of being shown inside their church. This was only because Jacob is the custodian of the church and has the key. So we really struck gold. I took several pictures inside the church, which is Orthodox. In the old graveyard, at some distance from the church, we were shown the graves of Virgil's father Ioan (John) Buturean, and the grave of the Sima family. Virgil explained that this couple's children have all moved away from the village.

Who are the Sima's you are asking. Well ... when my great grandfather George emmigrated from Petelca, he left with Teodor Sima. Teodor married Veronica Avram, and George married her sister, Sophia, my great grandmother. And, though the details are still unclear, Sophia seemed to think, while she was alive, that George and Teodor were cousins or at least related somehow. I don't know.

We left Petelca on the good road, and proceeded towards Odverem. We didn't know it, but there are villages that are even more "out in the sticks" than Petelca. Much more. Odverem is up at the end of a valley, around the bend, down a dirt lane, and around another bend. It's the end of the world. We had an address of someone called Minodora Avram - who turned out to be a ca. 100-year-old lady who was hard of hearing. BUt through her sons (or grandsons just as easily, though they seemed to be in their 50's) we established that it was unlikely that we were related.

There were apparently many Avram families in the village, of no relation to each other. So we left it at that. The day had still been a great success, so it wasn't that much of a disappointment, especially considering that I already have contact with a number of people on that side of the family.

We stopped at the church on the way home, and talked to a man who was painting frescoes in the alter room. And he told us (this just proves that you have to stop and talk to people - you never know what kind of info they have stored away) he said that in the house next door lived an old lady who was celebrating her 95th birthday today. And she and her family kept the old church records (of births, marriages, and deaths). So we intruded on the party that hadn't really begun yet. And the old lady's son dug out the books. There we found one Sofia Avram, born on the 1 of May, 1986 in the family of Ioan Avram. There was no date of marriage or death (which implies that she moved away). I don't know if this is my great grandmother or not, but I think it's very likely.

We also found one entry for Maria Faladau, born on 2 November 1868 and married to Ioan Avram on 20 February 1887. I feel confident saying these are probably my great-grandmother Sofia and great great-grandmother Maria. But I can't be sure. There was even a Rachila Avram born in 1901 but for whome there are no records of marriage or death ... the mystery continues. Actually it continue forever and you have to ask yourself why it's so intriguing. It's not really. It's fun. But just because someone is a distant relative doesn't mean you know them well. I'm really glad I met the Buturean family in Petelca and I hope to come back one day. That's about it. But it is a potent discovery of history. The ride home was punctuated by only a few picture-stops. Mostly we wanted to get home after a long day. And today we have been taking it much more slow. Slowly. I don't know.

We took the children ... the children are, once again, American/Romanian kids who live in England but are here on vacation with their grandparents ... we took them to the convent in the next village, Orlat. It's good that we only took them on a short excursion because even at the ages of 7 and 8 respectively they get bored easily and get creative. A bit too creative. Their grandmother and I have colluded to go to the convent for the morning service tomorrow morning. After the visit to the convent we left the car outside the boarding house and walked to the church and glass-icon museum in Sibiel. I don't have pictures of the glass-icons because you have to pay three dollars to have permission to take pictures. You are probably thinking I'm cheap, but that's because you don't know that I bought a book with pictures - better pictures than I would have been able to take in the poorly lit museum. The glass icons are amazing.

Oddly, however, I was even more charmed by a monument on the main road of Sibiel, which has old damaged icons åpainted on the inner-facing sides of its four pillars, and on the inside of its dome. It's fantastic; right in the middle of the town, there is a collection of what must be very old icons. In America we have fire-hydrants, in Sibiel they have icons.

We got home to find Adriana hard at work preparing for the seventeen French tourists who arrived late in the evening. At the same time she was cooking lunch for the crew that was already here - over a flat-topped wood-heated stove. In a tiny kitchen. She has two kitchens; one with a gas stove and modern amenities, and one older one with the wood-heated stove. I think she finds the wood-heated one practical and adequate, so that was the one she used today.

As I was waiting I admired some icons painted by Ramona on small stones. The grandfather (here with his grandkids) was busy solving a sudoku. He and his wife are both retired professors. I call him Prof. Grand-dad. He had a sudoku, Adriana, Julia and Monica had pickled cabbage leaves they were soaking in water, so as to make them useable for ... they roll up small bits of minced meat in them, and cook. Long story. Kåldolmar. If you know what that is.

The last pictues in this collection are of the Pensiune Costandel. It's charming. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

The pictures stop at this point, but the story continues. After an early dinner Cami and I drove off in the direction of the Skete of Sibiel which is high up in the hills some three miles from the boarding house. We got about four miles. And then a logging truck was blocking the one-lane road, loading loggs. So I parked the car and we set off by foot ... about an hour later we huffed and puffed into the skete that houses three monks. My camera battery had died in the afternoon, so currently I don't have any pictures to show for my troubles, but I'm considering a return trip tomorrow afternoon if it's practicable. Otherwise I'll have to take pictures next time.

The old chapel at the Skete (if you're wondering what on earth a Skete is ... the short version is that it's a monastery with a small number of monastics (nuns or monks) who live semi-indepently in their own small houses, and meet for prayer, as opposed to monasteries where they have large communal dining rooms, and spend all their time together. Anyway the old chapel is dedicated to the Prophet Elijah. I've never been in a church dedicated to Elijah. Most churches are dedicated to a saint from the new-testament period or later. But they don't have to be, apparently. And they couldn't have found a better place to dedicate a church to Elijah than atop a mountain that strongly resembles Mt. Carmel. I don't know if the crows bring them food, but it does rain.

That brings us more or less up to date.

I am personally more inclined to like mountainous regions than flat arid places like Arad. Of course, the main reason I came was to meet the people, and in that regard I was very well taken care of in Arad. But the hills of Transylvania are breath-taking. They are unspoiled and enchanted.

Romania day 4/5 (the short version)

2010-08-17T12:04:00.000-07:00

I'm borrowing Adriana's computer to write this, so it's going to be the short version (short in the universe of Herman). I'll write the long version on my own laptop and transfer it tomorrow.

I'm now in Sibiel which is a small village close to the large city of Sibiu. It took about six hours to drive here yesterday, but that includes about a gazillion stops for picture-taking. Transylvania is enchanting, what can I say.

Today I drove to Petelca with my interpretor. Petelca is the city where my great grandfather George Buturian emmigrated from. There I found two families called Buturean (note different spelling) one of which had pictures of my great grandfather George and great grandmother Sofia with english handwriting on the back that said "mom and dad". Don't yet know if it was Helen, but we think it was her - someone in my grandfather's family helped George correspond with them. More about that in the long version.

The lady we met is called Virginia Buturean and her son is Virgil. Virgil is, I'm guessing, 55-60 and Virgionia is probably close to 80. Then we met Jacob Buturean who is the cousin of Virgil. Both Virgil and Jacob are grand-nephews of my great grandfatherGeorge. Confusing?

We had coffee, saw their beautiful Orthodox church, and saw graves in the graveyard with the names Buturean and Sima (more about that too).

Then we went to Odverem (where my great grandmother Sofia was born) and didn't have as much luck there. We found an old lady whose last name was Avram. She was born in 1910 or so. She's virtually deaf and didn't remember anyone with the names we had, but it wasn't surprising. Her sons explained to us that half the village used to have the last name Avram, but they weren't all part of the same family, actually. So that was a bit of a dead end. But we found the people who keep the church records (birth, marriage, death) and we found both Maria Faladau (my great great grandmother, Sofia's mother) and Sofia Avram and Veronica Avram. There were records of their births, and in the caseof Maria marriage, but no death records. The years fit approximately to what I remembered (forgot to bring the documents with dates) We think these are the people from our family, but will have to do some double-checking of dates. Along the way we met a whole host of friendly warm people who helped us and gave us directions. A monumentally successful day.

There's a pair of Romanian retired people staying here at Adriana and Nelu's boarding house right now with their two grandchildren who live in England with their American dad and Romanian mom(!). They speak both English and Romanian and help us translate when the translator isn't here (she isn't sleeping here at the hotel). The little girls's name is Julia. She's seven and sooooooo cute - a little know-it-all who tries to get her brother and Catalin (Ramona's brother, Adriana's son, 7 years old) to behave.But they just ignore her. So she hangs out with us and helps us understand each other.

Makes me miss my own little Julia.

More tomorrow.

Romania day 2-3

2010-08-15T21:35:00.000-07:00

More photos here.

The weekend was rich with events. Not surprisingly I was exhausted Saturday and Sunday nights, so I didn't manage to write anything, but I did manage to take pictures.

Saturd

ay began with a bit of wandering about in Arad. I would drive a few blocks, park and take some pictures, and then drive a few more blocks. I tried to capture how there is s

o much progress going on h

ere at the same time as so much crumbling of buildings/roads etc. It's like the old residents have vacated the p

lace, and only a handful of people are left to get by as best they can - which is probably somewhat true. I have heard before that there is a large drain on human resources from Eastern European countries in general, since anyone who can tries to move away.

At the same time as several buildings are falling apart, several new ones pop up - complete with billboards and advertisements for mobile phone services etc. I saw a lamburgini parked on the main streat next to an old Dacia (domestic brand). There are streat-corner joints which consist of a shack that sells coca-cola, hotdogs, and icecream. Usually three or four people sit outside on plastic chairs under the coca-cola branded parasol. But right next door could be a pub/restaurant that reminds you of one you might see in London (this is only in the center of town, btw - out in the villages it's only the former).

I'm struck by how much more sociable Romania is than Sweden. Every evening as I would drive home through the villages I would see small groups of people sitting togeth

er outside on benches and at the aforementioned rustic establish

ments. Everyone seems to know everyone.

After lunch with Doina, Viorel, Radu and Letitia, Radu and I went for a walk down to the Mures river - about 20 minutes away. It was 38 degrees in the sun, and very humid.

I got some good pictures, and it was worth the trip, but in another sense it was a bit of a protean thing to do given that the river is too dirty to swim in (right now ... the heavy rains have muddied it).

Out in a wooded lane between two fields we saw this little house. It was elaborately decorated all around the

outside.

For me this is typical of Romania. They paint icons on the outside of the churches - not something you

usually see elsewhere. They paint and decorate the outside of graves. And they paint little shacks out in the woods. Aparently. It belonged to an old man who lived alone. N

ow it's empty.

In the evening we all went to the Monastery for the celebration of the feast of the dormition. The part we joined consisted of a procession along the road leading to the monastery. On either side of that road are monuments with icons depicting the stations of the cross. As we were walking to the Monastery (driving would have been very difficult because a) there were about a gazillion cars parked there already, and b) so many people we

re walking on the road, we it would have been difficult to get through). On every telephone pole the monks have mounted large speakers that broadcast the sound of their services. So we could hear them chanting as we went. You might think - were they already chanting when you came? Were you late?

If you are thinking that it is because you haven't been to an Orthodox monastery - the services

never really have a defined beginning or end, and the people always come and go in the middle of everything. I think there had been services most of the day. It's a very important feast. So we were only in on part of it.

It's hard to describe how energizing it is to walk to the monastery in the setting sun with t

he sound of byzantine chant being played over the loud speakers. There were literally hundreds of people all going together.

And as if that weren't impressive enough - when we got there the courtyards were full, and t

he procession to the stations of the cross was made up of thousands. Thousands of people from small children to teenagers, young couples, old people - the whole span of ages. They walked together in the heat, holding hands and propping each other up, as we listened to the priests read the gospel readings at each station. I was very touched and impressed by how genuine the community of believers is. It's not a group of like-minded individuals; a subset of the local population who meet together because they have the same taste in religion. It was almost the entire population of three or four villages, all together. We westerners haven't seen anything like that for centuries - whole communities that worship together as communities.

Doina and Viorel had a barbecue when we came home, and I was invited to eat, told to eat, reminded to eat, exhorted to eat, admonished for not eating eagerly enough, and then offered even more. Did I menti

on there was food?

Sunday morning I stopped by their house on the way to the Monastery to pick up Letitia (the grandmother of the family). Letitia is so much a central part of the monastery - when I talked to the monks in the book store and told them I was related to her they all reacted - "OH! YOUR WITH LETITIA! Everyone knows her!" So I picked her up on Sunday morning to go to the mon

astery.

When we got there the sun was still low in the sky, so standing in the courtyard among the people seemed like it was going to work. By the way - on feast days like this one, they celebrate out in an open stage/alter room. The large courtyard was full of people on lawnchairs and stools.

Being truly Orthodox, they were about an hour behind schedule. And in the midst of the liturgy, they were also ordaining a priest. So I managed to hold out standing for three hours, but then the angry sun beating down on me was just a bit too much. So I went out and sat in the car and listened to the service from there (they were playing the service on the speakers today as well).

After lunch back at the house with Viorel and Radu, I took a long nap. When I woke up we set up for a Skype call with my grandfather Charles. He and Letitia are cousins, and Charles remembers some Romanian phrases from his childhood. He visited Letitia in 1990. So we all got to talk for a while which was very nice.

And after I drove Radu off to a party in the next town, I stopped by the Monastery again. I got there in the middle of vespers, and stayed until the end. The singing was so beautiful, even though there were only three or fou

r men singing. I was the perfect way to end the weekend.

So today I'm off to Sibiel to see Letitia's other daughter Adriana and family ... with one important member missing of course.

Ramona why aren't you here? This, by the way, is a picture of Ramona I got from her aunty Doina - you like? I like! Maybe you can explain to me why all the trees here are painted white at the bottom, Ramona?

More photos here

Romania day 1

2010-08-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

The alarm went off at 4 this morning and I was reminded of the proverb I learned: cine se scoala de dimineata este obosit tota ziua. He who gets up early in the morning is tired all day. It's a play on the 'early bird gets the worm' proverb.

I wasn't tired all day. The flight to Munich and then to Timisoara went without incident and I managed to rent a car and drive off towards Arad. I was wishing the whole time that I could stop and take a picture. And I will, I promise. (look here at the pictures I did take - descriptions will be added shortly). But Radu was waiting for me at my hotel, and my plane was a bit late getting in from Munich. So I pressed on.

The bridge I was supposed to cross in order to get into the center of town was closed, however, which made things a bit more interesting. I think I asked for directions three times before I just used good gut instinct and happened upon my hotel. Radu was waiting for me outside.

I had no idea what to expect coming to Romania. I knew that it was one of the poorer countries in the EU, but it is still quite a bit of shock to the system. I feel like I've been transported back in time to a vague period where the sidewalks are broad and people talk to each other, but where McDonalds has gotten a foothold (at least in one place). Driving through the village of Zardareni I was struck by how the main road was lined on eather side with a five-yard wide between it and the houses. The lawn was wooded, and ever tree was painted white from the ground up about four feet (pictures! - I know). Outside of people's mainly gated homes, neighbors were sitting on benches talking. Like i said, much more sociable.

On my way into Arad i stopped to look at a sign that had a map of the city. I noticed that i was just outside of a church, and I asked an older man walking by if it was an Orthodox church (I've taught myself enought Romanian to do at least that, but not much more). No, the church is catholic. But the Orthodox one was two doors down. So he walked with me. And the Orthodox church was closed unfortunately.

The old man took one of the freshly baked loaves of bread from the package-holder on the back of his bicycle and gave it to me. I guess he didn't want to send me away empty handed. We had a chat along the way about how his son lives in Arazona, how it's hotter there than it is here (it's HOT here!! and humid). And it turns out that the old man spent four years working in a factory in Israel, and we were both amused at the coincidence that I've lived there too.

So clearly a loaf of bread was in order! I'm munching on it now.

Arad is a mixture of Helsinki and Tijuana. That's the best I can do right now. It has trams (like Helsinki). It has a big gorgeous Orthodox church in the center which I'm hoping to see more of. It has shopping districts and wide avenues, and a defininte urban feel. But it has a feel about it just off the beaten path that is very manãna manãna - no rush. And the unfairness and injustice of the system that is makes itself felt much more often than in sheltered little Sweden.

After I picked up Radu we drove straight to the Monastery which is five minutes from the house that he, his parents and his grandmother, Letitia, live in. Letita was already at the monastery (along with a cohort of women of a similar age) preparing for the feast which begins tomorrow evening. She showed us around. I took pictures, but I was shy about taking too many of too many unsuspecting victims. One of the monks showed us the monastery's museum which has, among other things, icons from the 1500, and a bible written in latin and greek from the 1200's.

The monastery is a vision of peace and tranquility. There were people there, coming and going, but it wasn't crowded. I want to spend a lot more time there in the future.

And we ended the evening with dinner at Radu's house, though his mother had to work late and wasn't there.

Tomorrow: more pictures, a walk around Arad, and the beginning of the celebration of the feast of the dormition at 7pm.

Off to Paris for the Weekend

2010-04-08T01:42:00.000-07:00

To celebrate our 10th anniversary (which was the 25th of March) Anna and I are going to Paris for the weekend. Julia will be with her grandparents.

Capitalism, A Love Story, By Michael Moore

2010-03-04T04:12:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I watched Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism, A Love Story". One thumb up and one thumb down.

The Good
First the good stuff because it's always the easiest. He does get a great shot of the greed and waste of the world's financial system. He tells us that the reason the American industiral complex did so well in the post-war period was that we had bombed all the opposition - an interesting observation. And he rightly documented - this was probably the best part of the film - how in-bed with big banks the government is. He showed the CEO of Merryl Lynch telling President Reagan to 'speed up' his speech to the NY Stock Exchange. He showed how the whole Treasure Dept. is basically a wing of Goldman Sachs, how the bail-out was simply a low-grade robbery, and how many politicians - most notably Chris Dodd - are basically bribed by the banking sector in the form of no-hassle loans to the tune of millions of dollars. Basically if you're a powerful lawmaker or regulator you can get VIP loans, where fees and penalties are waved. And it's not called bribery. That really got me mad.

I also love Michael Moore's pranks and shenanegans. He took a 'crime sceen' yellow tape and taped all the way around the big bank buildings on wallstreet. He showed up to the bailed-out banks with a big secure dump-truck and told the security guard that he was there to 'collect the money'. Needless to say, he didn't get let into the building.

He went around documenting the evictions of lots of every-day people from their homes which was gripping. He talked to a former FBI specialist in white-collar crime. He looked at how companies take out life-insurance policies (which amongst the insurers are known as 'dead peasant' policies -eeew!). Basically someone dies, and walmart makes a million, while the deceased's family gets a huge bill for medical expenses and the funeral. It's actually big business.

Also he documented how a for-profit juvenile detention facility bribed a judge to send children to jail with them for just about any little tiny minor offense. They had this children-in-jail industry going, and eventually got busted for locking teenagers up for whole years because they had written something on facebook that someone else didn't like. To be fair, that's not capitalism, it's crime plain and simple. But it shows how naive Americans can be about letting private companies do what the public sector ought to be doing.

Wow.

And there are lots of tips of tips about what you can do on this part of Michael Moore's website.

The Bad
But ...

OK, first of all, this film is for-profit, so he has a lot of nerve going after capitalism. He never would have gotten to first base even making the film if it hadn't been for capitalist structures that would finance a project like that. My guess is that a capitalist put up a bunch of money up front for Michael Moore and all the scores of people who work with him to go around and do all the filming, post-production, editing etc. And that person, or those persons, will get a profit on the film when you and I rent it or go to the theaters. That's capitalism, sorry Michael.

What really got me was that he tried to draw the conclusion that capitalism can be replaced by socialism. Well ... I live in a pretty socialist country (Sweden) and we have plenty of capital. We have a stock exchange, we have investment firms, we have limited-liability corporations and for-profit organizations. And yet, we have universal health care, the highest literacy rate in the world (I think ... that's a factoid I got off of the West Wing, and let's just go with it because if it's not true it's close to being true). And even Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont, doesn't want to do away with the system where you can invest in a corporation, get a profit out, and have limited-liability as an owner.

Michael Moore visits a bakery in the film - a cooperative in California where the factory-floor worker gets paid $65k - because all the workers are owners, and they all have an equal say in the direction of the company. He didn't go into the details (not really a detail guy, Michael) about whether each worker owns an equal part, whether they have to buy-in when they start working, whether they are obliged to sell their shares when they quit, and whether the company has to buy back the stock when they leave. It's an interesting idea, and there's more to be said about such schemes work. But it's a capitalist system. It's free enterprise. It's just that they act out of a different school of enlightened self-interest. Money still had to be put up in order to buy all the assets (that's capital) and the product (in their case bread) is sold at a profit. It's just that they have a more democratic way of deciding the direction of the company and a more egalitarian distribution of the profits.

Michael points out that his own parents paid off their mortgage before he left home (don't remember what age he said). Well ... houses cost less to make back then, because builders made less money, and didn't always have benefits. Also, people had simpler homes back then - I doubt if they had a washing machine when he was growing up, or floor heating, or self-cleaning windows, or whatever more modern and therefore more expensive things we have today. He should go back a few more generations in our history, or in world history. He'll find that before the industrial revolution and the growth of modern capitalism workers like his parents would never have owned their own house at all - certainly not one of the same standard.

This observation about his parents paying off their mortgage quickly was part of a longer argument about how banks have demanded greater and greater profits, while also pushing people to borrow irresponsibly, taking out extra mortgages on their homes even when the didn't need to. Also, they started hiding special clauses in the loan contracts about how they could raise the interest rates suddenly, and eventually put people out of their homes even though they were still employed and able to pay normal payments. And He's right that that's evil.

But he doesn't talk about the other half of that evil equation: the borrower. Normal work-a-day people can be greedy too. Some people take out an extra mortgage to send their kids to college. Some people take out an extra loan to put in a pool, get a new car, and a wide-screen. The second variation, I would bet, is more common than the first. Or rabid, insane consumerism in America is also the result of predatory advertisement and brain-washing from the big corporations, but people can say no. I mean, have your cake, or eat it - not both. You can either encourage people to get off their asses and do something (which Michael Moore does), or it's all someone else's fault. I think more needs to be said about the me-centeredness of America, and the west in general.

Here's the thing - if we did away with the way finance is done currently - with predatory lending, with whole flocks of mathematicians doing nothing more productive than sitting behind a screen at Goldman Sachs and moving numbers around on a screen - the results would be mixed. Banks wouldn't pressure you to take out a home-equity loan when you're 60. You also wouldn't be able to take out a home-equity loan when you're 60. Investors wouldn't pump companies dry for profit, laying off workers just to send the stock-prices up, or busting unions. But investors would also be harder to find for the start-up entrepreneur who has a good idea and wants to patent it.

You would have more big-huge organizations, not less. When you don't have a system that loves to bet a few hundred thousand dollars on a bright idea, small businesses don't start up.

The Ugly
I just think he's misdiagnosed the disease. The problem isn't capitalism, it's a number of things around capitalism that have to be more tightly regulated, and dealt with.

I think that the example of a worker-owned factory is a great idea. Yes - I can see how that would be smarter actually. Toyota figured out a long time ago that the workers themselves know best how to run their workplace, and harnessed their knowledge for the good of the whole company. Don't know if they did any profit-sharing, but at least they figured that out. But we don't actually need a revolution or the end of capitalism to accomplish that. You see, if you buy stocks you have a say. It's that simple. If the unions in America had any sense at all they would use the buying power of their members' pensions to become big power players in the companies where their workers work. If you buy up more than half of the stocks in a company, you can basically run it according to your own agenda.

Plus, when you are a part-owner in a company you don't have this uncooperative unhelpful attitude that Unions have a reputation for having in America. This - I'm not going to give an inch to this evil employer of mine because he's always trying to exploit me - attitude. How about the attitude: I own this company and I have a vested interest in it succeeding. Sound like a good idea? It's not anti-capitalism, it's a different kind of capitalism.

Moore pointed out that in Germany workers get to appoint board members in the companies where they work. That's partially true - actually the company has to have more than x-number of employees. In Sweden if there are more than 20 employees the employees have the right to appoint two board members and two alternates - and if you have several thousand employees, they get to appoint more. But you know what? If you own 30 or 40% of the company you usually have a pretty big say in who sits on the board, even if you don't have a simple majority. Why aren't more liberals using the system for their own purposes?

I just don't like sob stories when they don't lead into actual solutions. There are plenty of tips on Michael Moore's website about what you can do as a citizen, but I don't think even he pretends to have worked out how the whole system is supposed to look when it's fixed. Michael Moore usually doesn't offers solutions in his films - at least this time he hinted at solutions. But the title of the film betrays the fact that he has a very muddled picture both of what's wrong with America and how it can be fixed, and that frustrates me to no end. There's nothing more unhelpful to progress than a muddled advocate making muddled arguments in favor of progress.

But do watch the film.

Two articles

2010-02-21T18:58:00.000-08:00

I recently read two really interesting short articles on the BBC. The first one's about Kipling, and the second's about Voodoo in Haiti. Enjoy.

Kipling

"There has always been a deep ambivalence to Kipling because of his dislike of Indians who read and speak in English. His deep antipathy towards people in Calcutta who are university-educated means that he's in trouble because it's those people who now read in English in India."
But Mr Adiga said that Kipling had a "deep love" of India's forests and that his jungle tales presented a picture of "a part of India that is now quickly vanishing".
As Orwell pointed out in an oft-quoted essay, Kipling was not just a writer but someone who added phrases to the English language.
But could it be that, for the man who wrote "what do they know of England who only England know?"; "the female of the species is more deadly than the male" and "you'll be a man, my son", a more lasting theme may be "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet"?

Whole article

Haiti

"For a religion that's supposedly the national religion of the Haitian people, it's amazingly absent in the earthquake phenomena," says Gerald Murray, a University of Florida anthropologist who has carried out extensive fieldwork in Haiti.
Some argue that voodoo's conspicuous absence in the aftermath of the quake is due to prejudice. Many Christians - especially Protestants - regard voodoo as devil worship.
This idea was expressed in its most striking form by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, who said shortly after the quake that Haiti had made a "pact with the devil" when it defeated French colonists two centuries ago.
According to Mr Beaubrun, such attitudes have been in evidence during relief operations.
"Some Christian communities do not want to give food to voodoo followers," he says.
"As soon as they see people wearing peasant clothes or voodoo handkerchiefs, they put them aside and deny them food.
"This is something I've seen."

Faraway god

The three days of prayer held for earthquake victims on 12, 13 and 14 February pointedly included voodoo practitioners.
And, perhaps equally pointedly, a houngan (voodoo priest) taking part in the event stressed the common element between his faith and Christianity.
He told the BBC he would "pray to bondye" - referring to the voodoo supreme god, while not stressing the "loa", the lesser spirits that are at the centre of rituals.
This suggests tension between Haiti's rival faiths is not the main reason for voodoo's lack of visibility after the earthquake.
The principal factor, according to anthropologist Gerald Murray, could be theological.
In the voodoo belief system, natural disasters are not caused by the "loa", but by a distant "bondye".
The supreme being that unleashes the forces of nature is an unfathomable entity which cannot be influenced.
Only the lowly "loa", Mr Murray notes, can be accessed or propitiated - often through rituals led by houngans.
The main role of these specialists, Mr Murray adds, is the diagnosis and healing of an individual's illnesses.
"They have not traditionally played a role of national, social leaders of any type," he says.
"They will continue to be spirit healers for people who believe that their problems have been caused by the loa - but this earthquake was not caused by the loa."

Whole article

Julia

2010-02-15T01:49:00.001-08:00

Holistic Christian Sexuality and Community

2010-02-14T11:18:00.000-08:00

My previous post caused a big huge discussion - but not here. It was on Tamie's blog, because she quoted me. That's fine. It's a good place to have a discussion because she has more readers.

Here are some highlights that I want to discuss:

If I can speculate, the evangelical obsession with pre-marital sex stems from their underlying ideas that sex is an act of feminine submission to there dominate male counterparts.

My response: I do think that a lot of people consider sex an act of female submission.

I'll go ahead and just throw this out there: I find our society's norms of feminine clothing to be 'submissive' in a worrying way. Why should a woman wear skirts and high heals? Why the impractical clothing? I think because its suggestive, open, immobilizing. Women are told to act out their sexual gender role in fairly overt ways on a day-to-day public basis, and I am amazed that more women, especially liberated women, don't rebel against it.

Another comment:

I have been thinking alot about something scary a friend of mine heard from her pastors wife. "When married it is a wife's duty to always give her husband sex when he wants it." [my thoughts: isn't the husband giving too? I sex only a service performed by a woman for the sake of a man?]

And another:

I would say that the standard of "feminine modesty" imposed on women by Evangelical churches and other conservative institutions is equally oppressive and misogynistic. Evangelical women are told to cover their bodies completely, disguising the existence of their hips and breasts, obstructing all reminders of their sexuality entirely, for two reasons: so they won't "cause a brother to stumble," and because they belong so completely to their husbands that, should they allow other men to see any evidence of their sexuality, it approaches unfaithfulness. In other words, a woman is responsible for the sexual deviance of every man she encounters, and her husband's ownership of her sexuality overrides her bodily autonomy even before she has met him.

And another

Sex is the duty of the married woman. Because if you don't keep him happy he'll start looking around, and that will be your fault. Right?

That's the message I've heard, and as a married woman it's hard to find a new one. Should I only have sex when I feel like it? Isn't that selfish? Shouldn't I think about his needs and just do it because on some level it's 'good for our marriage'? These destructive evangelical sex messages don't stop once you're married.

When I think about premarital sex one of the first things that comes to my mind is pregnancy. Because of contraceptives we've managed to dissociate sex from fertility, but mother nature is very good at getting her way, even when we use contraceptives. While not all sex is for reproduction (a woman can only get pregnant one week a month in the first place), sex and fertility cannot be divorced, even with contraceptives. So I guess the way I see sex is that anyone who is having sex in such a way that babies can be made should be in a relationship where they are prepared to take care of a baby together.Because if a woman is in a relationship with a man who is not prepared to take care of a baby with her, then you know who has to take care of the baby--the woman. Which is in large part why I think the contraceptive pill and some other contraceptives are anti-feminist. Because if the woman does get pregnant then the man will probably feel no responsibility and the couple will probably not have talked about it beforehand. I also think these types of contraceptives are anti-feminist because they dissociate a woman from herself, from her fertility cycle, which is a profound part of being a woman.

As far as the Bible goes, there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that I don't see evangelicals talking about. Like multiple spouses. How many concubines did Solomon have? David? Nobody in the new testament ever mentions that this practice was bad, either.

A reply:

I've been feeling for years that, on some philosophical level, contraception can be anti-feministic or is used or approached in a way that denies the value of who and what we are as whole women, denies the goodness and sacredness of our whole sexuality.

But I also believe that fertility, pregnancy, childbirth, breast feeding, and child rearing are essential parts of a woman's sexuality, and a man's too. (When people say "Ew, don't breast feed a toddler, it's sexual!" I don't want to say "No it's not!" I want to say "So?") But there seems to be this assumption that having sex for pleasure only whenever our bodies tell us to is to be "sexually free" "like men are," and so it's great to be able to take a pill to cure fertility ... I sometimes feel like taking a pill to avoid pregnancy would be to treat my sexuality as a disease rather than a sacred gift. I think it can be a far more honoring-to-women thing to reintegrate our view of sex and fertility, which might mean making an empowered choice not to have sex (even despite arousal) because the full expression of sexuality isn't desired or wise at that time. In this, a couple would honor all of what they are as good, rather than only the part that says "I want this now and I should have what I want when I want it."

I wonder what would happen if the assumption were reversed: instead of "Sex is wrong except in a certain context," its being "Sex is good except in certain contexts." Hmm.

................................

Wow, this is all powerful stuff.

I want to explain at this point that all my criticism of 'evangelicals' is born out of a number of years spent in the inner-circles of two evangelical Vineyard churches, years that ended with me taking a radical turn and becoming Orthodox. I guess I should temper my criticisms with a bit of love. Definitely not much love in my criticisms and I apologize for that. But I am genuinely and unapologetically angry with the extent to which people are lead astray and hurt by know-it-all do-it-yourself evangelical pastors who, in my experience, tend to lack in formal training or respect for the 2000 year of Christian tradition. If you're ever tempted to think that the doctrinal disputes of the church fathers in the patristic period were petty and theoretical, think of the pastor's wife who teaches women to have sex when they don't want to. I think that the patristic fathers saw just as real, practical reasons for fighting heresy.

So having said that, I think I'll try to give voice to the Orthodox Christian tradition on this issue, and try to add as little as I can of my own voice.

Definitely the body and sex are primarily to be seen as good. Like any good thing too much at the wrong time will hurt us and others.

But you really have to discuss what it is that constitutes right and wrong to get at the heart of the issue. Go to Proverbs and read about the Fool. He drinks, he frequents prostitutes, he schemes to defraud his neighbor. Isn't that what we would call a 'sinner' in modern protestant English? The thing about sin is that it's foolish. And God's wisdom is not a reaction to sin, but is prior to sin. He creates us first and then we sin.

The western view of a wrathful God threatening us with damnation is, I think, based largely on midieval Europe's feudal experience. God is seen as this angry Lord who will throw us into a debtor's prison if we don't pay him the taxes and tribute he demands. When we talk about God's will, or God's wrath in the West you get the picture that man sinned first, and then God works hard to enforce his will upon man. Man sins, and then God is forced to damn man. It's as if God has no choice in the matter. It's as if God couldn't stop him, but, darn it, he's going to get even.

An Orthodox priest once told me, much to my surprise, that God does not exist. Does not exist? No. He is. He has called himself 'I am'. He is. I thinkthe point was that 'exist' implies that we looked for him and found him. But the reality is that he created us before we looked for him, if we even did look for him. He is. His will is. And so he doesn't need to be angry with us because his salvation is before we are. He doesn't need to fight us or win over us with his will becauase he is trimphant before we exist. His will is a peaceful loving reality, not a angry anxious fight.

In that context what does submission mean? Submission does not mean losing a fight. Submission is the free act of a human being who trusts that God's will is good, and therefore sees in enlightened self-interest that it is the best, wisest way forwards. The fool comes to his senses, wishes to be wise, and chooses the smart path. That is submission. It's good for you (like a medicine) to submit. It's not for God's sake - he certainly doesn't need for you to submit. He's not angry with you. He's not trying to win a fight with you to get you to submit. If you're smart, you'll look for his way and try to follow it because it works better.

So submission is nothing humiliating or defeating if we view it as the Church does. To submit is not to lose, but to choose (put it on a bumper sticker, I dare you!)

If a woman wears modest clothes it should be because of her choice to do something she finds to be wise (either by figuring it out for herself, or by trusting God that it's the smart thing to do.) To submit is not to lose, but to choose. I really don't have much to prescribe on the matter of women's clothing. I have enough problems with my own choices. It's certainly my own problem if I stare at a fully-dressed woman and try to imagine her naked body underneath the clothes. Maybe she has helpled me along the way, maybe not. It's still my problem.

And the sacrament of submission is not closed off to men. Monks, for example, submit to their spiritual fathers and communities in just about every little detail of their lives. Every man should be given the opportunity to submit his life to the instruction of the church (which is general) and to a person, or specific people in particular. It's a gift, not a curse.

I'll paraphrase a sermon I heard from another Orthodox priest: we have passions (desires, tendencies, urges) which in and of themselves are not bad. But we are wounded people, and our passions drag us around into excesses. We search for false comforts for the wounds we've received, and we've lost control. And so in order to put our life back into balance, and in order to learn how to turn to God, we have to practice the counter-part of our passion at any given time. If we're being tempted to steal or to crave money, we should practice generosity. If we're being tempted to indulge, we should practice abstinence and fasting. If we're tempted to judge others we should call to mind our own sins and faults.

So Amy, I couldn't agree more that a normal and central part in a balanced marriage is making a wise loving decision about when not to have sex. Like when my wife doesn't feel like it. That is a perfect time for me not to have sex - to practice abstinence. Or when we are postponing having a child. Or during periods of fasting and praying.

It was put to me and my wife before we had our daughter that our marriage would only be complete when we had children. I had no idea how right the person was. He pointed out that 'the two shall become one flesh' does not mean that you become metaphorically one flesh in the act of sex. It's about the new person who comes from both of your bodies. My daughter is one flesh from us both. Our sexuality and partnership took on a completely new meaning when we knew that we were opening up our whole lives to the grace of God in that particular sense. Maybe we would have a baby, maybe not. It was really 'taking a leap'. I don't judge anyone for using contraception, but I do think that divorcing sexuality from family life does some violence to the whole person.

However, I think all of this is very nice in theory, but one thing keeps it from often becoming a reality in our day and age. If we lived in the type of society where extended families all lived together under one roof, or in a small geographical area, I think less people would use contraceptives. Raising children as an isolated nuclear family is not only tough, it's unnatural. Children need a whole extended family of adults to rely on, and parents aren't made for doing it all by themselves. What on earth do you think grandmothers and grandfathers, and aunts and uncles ar for, people?

But living in that close of a community doesn't come without its price tag either. People put their noses in each other's business. They have opinions. They judge. They fight. They get on your nerves. We are used to so much privacy and autonomy that I don't think most of us would survive, even if we had access to all the free babysitting. Submission would be on a whole new level - never mind modest clothing, or compulsary sex. How about submitting to the expectations and tabus of your extended family/community so as not to cause offense, and so as to be able to live in peace with everyone? Doesn't sound so rosey now, does it?

So we're stuck basically. We can romanticize living in closer community with people, but I have both eyes wide open. It would be the challenge of my life, one that I doubt I'm up to, to live in a community where we took care of each other so well that all couples would stop using contraception and just let the cards fall where they fell. I would probably take to the bottle (whiskey not milk) and who knows what else. I think that integrating your whole life means integrating the sinful hurt parts that you may have managed to quaranteen for a now.

I'll round off ... there's an Orthodox community I know of in the US where a few families run a school for troubled young men. Teenage boys get sent there as a last option instead of sending them to jail - for example. They have staff members who live in one big house, complex. The boys get to learn different forms of work, they don't really divide into 'staff' and 'students' very neatly, although there are boundary lines. Mostly they're a community of repentant sinners. They have mattins and vespers services every day. Most of the students sing in the choir. They appoint someone to read outloud at every meal, and they eat in silence listening to a reading. Actually, I don't know if it's every meal, but almost. They live an intensely transformational and God-filled life. Everything is about their faith and their church. It's beautiful and when I get their newsletter I read it with a mixed sense of longing and feared awe. Would I be able to hack it if I lived there?

I wrote to the priest who runs the place, and told him that their Christmas photo of everyone in the community looked like a collection of happy faces. He wrote back and said that the happy faces actually hide the immense beautiful suffering that God sends them as a continual gift. They have addicts who come there, and fail to get rehabilitated. Occasionally they'll find out that the addict has drunk himself into a vegitative state after having left. They are living with and fighting a spiritual battle against the pain, woundedness and sin of our society as it resides in a few individuals, but also as it resides in every one of them. It's triumphant but it's a crucifixion.

That's a picture of what a real community, a real integrated whole life could look like, and I think a respectful loving view of both a man's and a woman's gender roll is only to be found in a community where people lovingly submit their lives to the beautiful gift of triumphant suffering. But I have no idea how I would ever survive it. Lord, have mercy.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 5

2010-02-10T11:19:00.000-08:00

1 Corinthians 5: ¹It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. ²And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? ³Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. ⁴When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, ⁵hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
⁶Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? ⁷Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. ⁸Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
⁹I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
¹²What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

I decided to write a bit of exegesis because my sister was writing on a similar subject. One girl who took part in the discussion said she had been called a fornicator from the pulpit of some chuch. So I looked up 'fornicator' in the Bible, because I know that the word found its way into the English language through the very unenlightened appropriation of a Greek word in the King James translation (from 1604 AD). Above is the NIV which tranlates it, correctly, "sexual immorality".

The background to the passage above is that Paul, the author, had founded a group of converts to a new interpretation of Judaism in the city Corinth. Some years after the group was established, he writes letters of instruction to them, as he is travelling and founding other such groups in different cities. So the group in Corinth (a city in Greece) was known by Paul (the guy writing the text) both as a group of close friends, but also as a group of very arrogant people. Paul tells us that the Corinthians considered themselves prophets, elightened, gifted, chosen, amazing. They were particularly enammored by the perceived amazingness of their group - a new amazing and enlightened sect of Judaism. They were elitist, they neglected the people they found to be unlikeable, or unpleasant, and basked in their own amazing spiritualness. So most of the whole document that Paul is writing to them is a letter telling them to get off of their high horses. The thrust of the document is intended to undermine the clique, or the group-think that was inward-looking, and move people to open themselves to outsiders instead.

So in verse 2 Paul says "And you are proud!". He's saying that their pride is unfounded, and that the group is not so amazing. While they were admiring their own reflections in the mirror, some of their members were up to no good. Perhaps their time would be better spent on meaningful dialogue and not mutual self-admiration. The analogy about yeast plays on the Jewish tradition of purging yeast from the home during Pesach. Yeast has the property (since it is a fungus) of growing, multiplying, and spreading. So it follows that anyone in the group who is immune from criticism of their behavior will in fact be contageous when they misbehave. The group is not perfect, and will become even less perfect if they go on living in denial of the groups obvious problems.

I think today's equivalent would be that Christians who consider their little church-communities to be perfect and spiritually gifted often miss the sinful and hurtful tendencies in their communities. But in our present-day case the tendency might be more that church communities neglect social justice while basking in their own emotional neediness and experience-addiction.

Like the Corinthians, we suffer from communal illnesses (trends that no one questions) where certain "beautiful" perfect people enjoy not only all the attention, space and time on the stage in church, but also enjoy virtual immunity from criticism. Think 'worship leader'. Think 'youth pastor'. Think 'assistant pastor with his cookie-cutter family'. We are no less narcissistic than the Corinthians: we put people up on a pedistal. These are people who we would like to become. Rich people. Successful people. Beautiful people. We work hard to uphold and defend their place of honor, because it hurts us to admit that the whole paradigm was wrong. They are not higher up and we are not going to ascend. Actually we're all standing flat-footed on an even ground. People then, and people today have a vested interest in not seeing this.

hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Either what Paul meant was that ordinary people had the ability and authority to send other people straight to hell, or this modern translation is still unsatisfactory (sorry all you NIV lovers).

What Paul was implying was that there comes a point when people hurt those around them by selfish behavior that you have to let them go their own way and suffer the consequences of their actions. The present-day equivalent would be an addict who resists all help. After the umpteenth time he needs to be bailed out of jail for a DUI, or the umpteenth time he gets fired you just have to say "I'm sorry but you're on your own." I think that "handing someone over to Satan so the sinful nature may be destroyed" means taking a hands-off approach. It means letting him suffer the consequences of his own actions in the hope that he might have a moment of clarity, or reach rock-bottom. It means he is not my responsibility, he is his own responsibility. Sometimes it's the right thing to do.

¹It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. ²And you are proud!

So this is, if you recall, the document which gave us the English word 'fornication'. An earlier translation rendered 'porneia' in Greek as 'fornication', which in the modern translation is 'sexual immorality'. And whereas fornication is normally thought of today as referring to premarital sex, in this passage it's a case of somethin akin to incest. A man is sleeping with his father's wife.

It's like me calling someone a 'downloader' as a term of abuse, to imply that they watch pornography (another cognate of porneia) after having read an article that decries internet piracy and illegal file-sharing. Let us say that the article only mentions in passing the fact that much of the material illegally shared is pornographic. So suddenly I think that 'downloaders' are all consumers of pornography, perhaps due to an ignorance of computer terminology. And I also get the mistaken impression that 'downlaoding' only ever refers to pornography. Imagine someone in 2000 years in China (a culture as far removed from me right now as I am from Paul and the Corinthians) standing at a church pulpit and pointing a judging finger at a congregant. "You are a DOWNLOADER!" It's a bit preposterous, but it's exactly what happens when someone yells 'FORNICATOR'.

Maybe premarital sex was within the boundaries of what was considered 'porneia'. Maybe, but not at all on the same grounds as it is today. The issue back then was one of honor, ownership and custody of women, purity and inheritance. It was about relationships, not about penetration.

The problem with a man sleeping with his father's wife, as the Jews of 1st century Greece would have seen it (by the way, we're talking about documents written by one 1st century Greek Jew to a group of Jews in Greece), was about the son violating the honor of the father. It had little to do with the actual sexual intercourse, as soomehow being a forbidden fruit. The concern was not sex being had in the wrong context, it was the fact that a son would behave so hurtfully to his father, and wife so hurtfully towards her husband. There was an infected love triangle, and probably more than a few people were very angry and hurt. The implication is that the son - the wrongdoer - was one of the elite 'perfect' people in the in-group of the Corinth church.

It is speculated that he was trying to justify his behaviour with reference to a common practice amongst proselytes to Judaism, namely that whatever relationships may have existed before conversion, they were null-and-void after conversion. Thus, proselytes were not looked down upon for divorcing upon conversion, because a previous marriage was nullified by the conversion of one party. That might work if you have, say, a woman who converts to Judaism and gets thrown out of her house by her gentile husband. Let's say a member of the community wants to take her as a wife, so as to keep her off the streets. Ok, we can nullify the marriage. I can buy that.

But Paul isn't buying it in the above case because the father is still publically disgraced (doesn't say so here, but I'm saying it's a much more plausible story). Elsewhere in the same letter, Paul discusses the issue of mixed-marriages where one person converts and the other doesn't. He discourages people from divorcing solely on those grounds, but understands if it has to happen. So clearly that was a subject of controversy.

⁹I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
¹²What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Paul is saying basically that it is only in the context of a close relationship of accountability that we should concern ourselves with other's actions. People we barely know are none of our business. People who look up to us and consider us to be close friends - in that context you might want to 'judge' in the sense of offering an opinion about their choices. Gently. Later on in the same letter he says 'If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

Paul is saying we should make the tight-knit community of the church a place where we submit to the scrutiny of each other in humility, where we ask for God's help to become better people, and where we do not dwell upon our own perceived enlightenment or others' perceived unenlightenment.

Finally, note that sexual immorality (again - think love triangles, hurt family members, children who would be considered illigitimate) is put alongside greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness and fraud. Or rather, those other things are put along side sexual immorality. This document alone cannot explain why unapproved sexual intercourse is such a singular problem for conservative christians, or why it enjoys such a special place in the pantheon of sins. The explanation is that the present day prudishness is not aboug the bible, or about biblical inerrancy. It's about prudishness.

Muslims: the new European Jews

2010-02-02T22:31:00.000-08:00

Enthüllung macht frei: Unveiling will make you free

This time when history repeats itself France is leading the charge against the large minority religious group. There is a populist anger and over-reaction to religious muslims being in France. Make no mistake, the fact that they are living in France is the problem, not the veils.

Recently France took steps to ban veils and burkas. Before that they banned head scarves in public school. Now they have denied citizenship to a man who is married to a French citizen because 'he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered' said Immigration Minister Eric Besson.

If a man is depriving his wife of liberty it is a matter for the police, not the Immigration minister. If he hasn't been found guilty of a crime it is not up to the Immigration Minister or anyone else to decide that he is responsible for what his wife does. Nor can a man in any country with a functioning rule of law be found to be in the wrong based on his wife exercising her freedoms. It's not illegal for a woman to wear a veil.

So basically if you belong to a religion that the French government doesn't like and your wife does things they find distastefully religious they can blame you, the husband, and without trial label you a patriarchal tyrant, and deny you citizenship. All based on the fact that there is a populist anger towards immigrants in general.

This is why in the US we cannot allow civil rights issues like gay marrage to be put to a vote by the people. At some point there have to be appointed officials - guardians - who protect the rights of the few from the fury of the many.

It is worrying that Western Europe is seeing this kind of intollerance in this day and age. It makes me think that people in 1920's Germany probably couldn't imagine that their modern society would ever take such a turn for the worse. If there was ever a time for the US congress to rename french fries as freedom fries it would actually be right now.

Gay Marriage

2010-01-17T12:53:00.000-08:00

Proposition 8 is going to die. It's going to be a house-hold term like Roe v. Wade, Hiroshima or Watergate. It's happening state by state, now, like dominos. Adam and Steve ... coming soon to a court house near you.

I don't take any pleasure at seeing gay people get married. I belong to a persuasion of Christianity that doesn't accept actively gay people as members or priests. I don't think it's genetic. I don't think it's the most fulfilling way to direct your life.

But if two people want to enter into contractual agreement like marriage, it has nothing to do with me. I don't want to deny people the right to visit their partners in the hospital, or inherit their partners, or get an equitable settlement in a divorce. Gay marriage being legal does not change the sacrament of marriage in my church. It does not violate the 'sanctity of marriage', as if that is some disembodied godess in the Christian pantheon, and we are the Herculean warriors defending her honor. The only person's mariage whose sanctity you need to defend is your own, and the only attack is from within.

Having said that I would like to share some thoughts about traditional marriage, and why things are the way they are.

First of all, I would like to speculate about why our attitudes towards marriage in general (not just about gay marriage) are as strong and touchy as they are. I'm going to do this by just describing the way people have lived for most of the time that human's have existed.

Imagine the life of two spouses in a small farming community in the US in the year 1820. Here are some differences between their lives and ours today. Whatever food they would eat they had to find or grow themselves - mostly anway. Sickness was usually fatal, and childbirth was very dangerous. There was no contraception, and no protection from or cure for venerial diseases. Whatever food they produced had to be shared with their children if they had any. There was no guarantee that they would have enough food to live through each winter.

Under those circumstances it would be reasonable for each spouse to expect and demand that the other was faithfully monogamous. A woman would say, "if I am going to bear your children I must be able to count on you feeding me while I am nursing, or bed-ridden, or both." A man would say, "if I am going to share my food with your children and catch their colds and measles I must be able to know with confidence that they are mine."

Today's world doesn't have any idea about the precariousness of life in the centuries and millenia during which our attitudes towards marriage developed. And it is unreasonble to expect people to forget those attitudes over night.

You would hate, and rightly so, the man who left his wife with three small children, all alone, on a farm in Kentucky in 1820 if you had any idea what kind of suffering that would bring about. You would hate the woman who lured him away. Don't judge all the people who have had to deal with that kind of reality in those times and places.

Another thought (that doesn't follow from the first at all): Gay marriage will never have as its natural and direct consequence the beginning of new life. All other things being equal, a heterosexual partnership will grow from the stage where two teenagers are kissing at the back of the bus, through the delivery room and the PTA meetings to the time when two more teenagers are kissing at the back of the bus. Even if there are some divorces and twists and turns along the way, all other things being equal that is what happens. All other things being equal, homosexual relationships don't bring about new life in the same way.

I read about the religions of Alaskan natives before Christianity came. Their myths about the creation of the world, and about other primordial events, had the significance that daily events and seasonal events were seen as a mystical repitition of the myths. Every time you went hunting, or built a house, or every time the ice melted it was a re-enactment of a creation myth or a meeting of the gods.

The book I was reading pointed out that Christianity has some of this same aspect. I think that when we get married, we are participating in the circle of life that all our ancestors have been through. It's the same circle, but now it's my turn. Next time it will be my children's turn. That doesn't mean that all or even most heterosexul relationships will turn out to be fulfilling or successful. I hear a lot of people poking fun at traditional Christians' attitudes towards homosexuality by pointing out how much failure there is in the sphere of traditional marriage. The fact that we are alive to have this discussion shows that there is more success than failure, as there is constant procreation. Even if marriage isn't a mystical participation in a timeless circle, it is a repetition of something that verifiably has happened - and has had to happen - every time a new generation is born.

I've also heard it pointed out that many Christians opposed civil rights for black people, and interracial marrige. Since the racism eventually died off, probably the anti-gay attitudes will go by the wayside over the course of time, it is claimed.

I want very much for everyone to enjoy the same rights as I enjoy, so I support gay marriage being legal. But don't ask me to affirm you, or reorganize my religion, because I don't think that gay marriage will ever be the same thing. In fifty or one hundred years babies will still be made the same way. I hope.

With the tongues of angels and even of men

2009-10-17T23:30:00.000-07:00

"What we lose is essentially an enormous cultural heritage, the way of expressing the relationship with nature, with the world, between themselves in the framework of their families, their kin people," says Mr Hagege.

In this article the BBC discusses dying languages. Is it a problem that languages die? Are languages like endangered species that we must protect from the global warming of English? And let us not forget that more people in the world speak Spanish and even more Mandarin ... but still.

I don't like treating any group of people like a museum exhibition to be preserved, put into a little terrarium out in the jungle and not disturbed by the (presumably less genuinely human) modern people. Is that not as dehumanizing as the post-enlightenment tendency to call these people 'primative'.

Fredrik Lindström (a Swedish TV-personality who has a PhD in nordic languages, whose TV shows always have to do with the oddities of language) did a TV show in Sweden where he sat down and had coffee with older members of a remote community who can still speak a dialect of archaic Swedish. Their dialect is completely unintelligable to modern Swedes.

They talked about gardening, about family history, who married who, who had which farm. And suddenly he changed the topic to politics. They answered him in modern Swedish without thinking. They were supposed to be speaking their 'language' but they didn't know how to speak about current issues in that language because it's not a current language.

There is no such thing as non-organic linguistic preservation. It doesn't work. When you try to preserve you end up killing more quickly. Either the language will adapt - most often by loaning words and melting into other languages, or it will die.

Let us not forget that languages have a given function: that we can speak with other people. If the only people you need to speak with are your local relatives and fellow villagers then Cornish will do. If you need to speak to people all over the world at a moment's notice I'm sorry, but a single global language serves that function much better, as much as the linguists in their laboratories would like to think otherwise.

Don't start a translation agency any time soon - they too may become passé.

I don't think that the death of a language (as sad as it is, and it is sad) annihilates a culture any more than the death of a generation of people - and that is something we cannot stop. My language is very different from my grandparents, but they are mutually intelligable. Their culture, however, would be virtually unintelligable to my children. A culture died. People died. But they were modern westerners and not naked natives in the jungle, and so there was no hand-wringing among the linguists.

Life is change, evolution, moving on. The forrest is the forrest, but there are different trees now than there were five hundred years ago. And different languages, even in the jungle.

Separation of Powers indeed

2009-09-30T22:32:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to the UK for creating a Supreme Court. Until now, the highest court of appeals was the House of Lords - or actually a small group of Lords called the Law Lords.

Lord Phillips said: "This is the last step in the separation of powers in this country. We have come to it fairly gently and gradually, but we have come to the point where the judges are completely separated from the legislature and executive.

What about the separation of the legislative and executive branches? Surely they ought to be separate as well?

Just because you have a queen doesn't mean you have a separate executive. "Her Majesty's Government" are all MPs. So, Lord Philips, as much as you are to be congratulated, I beg to differ that this is the last step. It's the penultimate step.

The next step may take another century, but it will come. And that step is to allow an elected official, a commoner, a mere mortal, to represent a country that prides itself on its people more than some ahistoric fairytale version of its past - i.e. the monarchy.

American Right Wing = Terrorists

2009-09-26T04:54:00.000-07:00

The suspicious death of a Census worker in Kentucky has led to increased focus on whether anti-Census conspiracies that have floated since the beginning of the Obama administration could lead to violence.

Some of these paranoid conspiracies been endorsed by Republican officials or prominent media figures; others only percolate on the internet.

One of the most infamous Census conspiracy theories was spread by Rep. Michele Bachmann -- that the census would lay the groundwork for World War II-style internment camps.

Bachmann, along with other conservative Republicans was concerned that ACORN would be working the Census anti-tax activist Neal Boortz thinks the Census is being used to take away your property and give it to the "moochers."

Some fringe conservatives think President Obama's in-school census kits are a way of indoctrinating children. Just like Hitler.

The American Daily Review suggests that the Census GPS is a way to help United Nations personnel round people up after Obama lets foreign troops control the country

Michelle Malkin suggests Obama aims to use the Census to undermine border control and give "the Left" a "permanent ruling majority" with the help of undocumented immigrants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/crazy-census-conspiracies_n_299830.html?slidenumber=7#slide_image

Crazy for God

2009-09-20T00:24:00.000-07:00

Many times I have spoken out against the religious right. Much of what I say about them comes from my own long experience as part of their community. But what are these people really saying? What do your neighbors and colleagues who call themselves evangelicals listen to on Sundays?

We'll start off with Pat Roberson who is about as main-stream as they come. He started the 700-club, and went on to run for president. Here's what he has to say about the peace process in Israel:

The UN hates Israel. Most of the leadership is Arab. The EU has been opposed to Israel all along. Russia has been doing deals with Iran and Syria and shipping them weapons. And the US has been the only protector of Israel.

Fact check: Israeli's used to call Russia 'our second homeland' because of the support the USSR gave to the creation of Israel. France was the vacation destination of choice for Israelis for much of the 50's, 60's and 70's - which is why French culture and architecture are among the greatest influences in Israeli culture and architecture - but apparently that's because the 'Europeans' hate the Jews. But what are facts when measured against Pat Robertson?

He continues...

That's going to be the final battle ... and all of the nations -- the UN, the EU ( the European Union), Russia and the USA -- the so-called quartet -- are going to be moving in power against the Jews to force them into an untenable peace.
...
It looks like we're heading down the so-called road map as hard as we can go, driven by the Arabs, driven by the Russians, driven by the Europeans, driven by the United Nations, all saying, "Let's put the squeeze on tiny, little Israel." And God, Himself, is going to fight for Israel.

All I can say is that there are two tragedies here: one is that Pat Robertson has a lot of listeners who are convinced by this fear-driven xenophobic zealotry. But the greatest tragedy is that someone like Pat Robertson would ever be given a platform to spread such sulfurous vile poison. You can pick up copies of Pat Roberson's books at just about any Christian bookshop, especially the ones inside the doors of your average evangelical church.

Well some people feel like I do, one blogger writes:

Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?

Let's look just a bit off the beaten path then. I googled. I didn't have to go far, but to be fair if you want to find the worst of the worst it's usually only one or two searches away, so that doesn't prove that the below is mainstream.

Paliban
Here's a site that started during the 2008 presidential campaign in support of Palin. It's called the Paliban - presumably a combination of Palin and Taliban. They have a link to another such site called Palintology.

The content is not easily distinguished from the Taliban either. Their agenda is "Christian Reconstruction -- that is, the stealthy, oft-unnoticed movement in America (and other nations) toward Christian theocracy".

They write,

"Here's a place to ... help others understand why "religious tolerance" is unGodly (unless it's tolerance of Christianity), and why it's so very important to put Christians in power. Only then can we become the Christian Nation we were always meant to be!"

The idea that we need Christians in power to surreptitiously take over is actually something you will hear from just about any Evangelical. It's just as much a Rick Warren phenomenon as a Jerry Fallwell phenomenon. It has always been a small victory when a Christian gets into the White House or the Senate. I mean, if you really don't think this stuff is representative of Evangelicalism consider how many theocratic agendas there are in the mainstream: outlawing abortion, using tax incentives to pressure people to marry, the illegality in many states of gay marriage, teaching abstinence instead of giving real sex education and providing contraception ... evangelicals secretly revel.

What else can you learn from "Your Christian Reconstruction News Source"?

A starter, here's what they said when the actor Ricardo Montalban died:

Ricardo Montalban Burns in Rich Corinthian Leather
A deeply spiritual man, Montalban once said that the guiding force in his life was his Catholic faith. ... click for info: Why aren't Catholics Christian?
We truly feel sorry for Mr. Montalban. He suffered horribly in his later years, confined to a wheelchair. Now, he will spend eternity in Hell, all because he listened to Catholic priests who told him it was OK to pretend to be a wizard on TV, as long as he didn't practice witchcraft "for real", and that it was OK to worship Mary and eat Jesus crackers instead of giving his life to Christ.

Catholics eat Jesus crackers ...well, they are at least consistent; they don't like religious tolerance, and this is anything but tolerant. But the real golden nugget is next.

Californicator Sells Daughter into Marriage -- Outrageous!
Marcelino de Jesus Martinez of Greenfield, California was arrested yesterday for allegedly selling his 14 year old daughter into marriage to an 18 year old man...

This is completely outrageous, and deserves the condemnation of every Christian from coast to coast. A man's relationship with his daughter is a sacred thing, so where does the California police state get off persecuting man for arranging a marriage for his daughter...? The Bible is crystal clear on this, a daughter is the property of her father.
Consider, for example, Exodus 21:7:

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If a man can sell his daughter into slavery, then surely he can sell her into marriage, which is a far more desirable state of being!

... The only way to put an end to this unconstitional and unbiblical governmental meddling in places where it does not belong, such as the bridal chambers of 14 year old girls, is to support Evangelical candidates for office such as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

I hope that all persons who revere Jesus and the Bible will unite and to defend this man for exercising his God given right to sell his daughter's maidenhead to the highest bidder willing to take her as a wife.

This is pretty far-out, and I don't know a single person who would agree with this. But how far is this really from Pat Robertson? Pat Robertson pushes a facts-optional fundamentalist agenda aided by conveniently selected and irreparably misconstrued Old Testament passages. If you asked Pat Robertson to explain to you through biblical exegesis why gay people should not be allowed to marry or why we should be teaching abstinence he would turn to the same Old Testament books as the Paliban writer. And let's be honest, their exegesis has exactly the same tone.

There is no difference. The blatant and unashamed racism of Robertson's 'prophecy' (that's what he calls it) painting all Arabs, all Russians and all Europeans as antisemites is no different from the misogyny of this Paliban writer. These people need to shut up, and American evangelicals need to stop selling their books, stop buying their CDs and stop listening to their sermons. If you wouldn't let the second writer sell books in your church then you shouldn't allow Pat Robertson's or James Dobson's books either. If you wouldn't go to a church where the second writer's vile filth is preached, why do you sit by silently when your friends and family talk about how the end times are upon us, or about how rediculous Catholics are?

Who can sail without wind?

2009-09-19T23:10:00.000-07:00

There's a traditional Swedish folk song that goes:

Who can sail without wind?
Who can row without oars?
Who can part with his friend without shedding tears?

Obama has the opposite problem. There is a strong wind blowing - the hurricane of anger the American people are feeling towards Wall Street and a corrupt system that allowed the economy to go to the dogs. The Republicans have harnessed this wind - and are sailing around in no particular direction, trying to figure out where the rudder is. Meanwhile Obama is sitting put in the White House hoping things might settle down.

Ok, I'm all for conciliatory talk. Let's face it, if Ariana Huffington or Keith Olberman were running the Democratic Party then we would never have a single congressman let alone a president. But when the wind is blowing, it's time to hoist a sail and use what you're given.

Are you getting tired of my sailing analogy? How about a business analogy? There are a lot of paying customers out there and Obama is not selling what they're buying. Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post (same Huffington as I mention above) asks "Who Will Harness The Rage?" He writes:

This summer, we've seen one possible pathway for the nation's angry populism -- one that exhibits many of the worst behaviors of disgruntled Americans throughout history. The birthers, deathers, town hallers and tea-baggers are paranoid and irrational and more than a little racist.

This of course begs two questions: if the Democrats were to offer an an alternative narrative for the expression of this anger would it necessarily dessintigrate into the kind of furious and incoherent mess that the Republicans are currently creating? And if we think that would be detrimental to our cause, would we really want to do that?

Let's take thes second question first. Most people on the left are agreed that the best way to fight the tea-party kristallnacht-esc movement of the right is just to expose it. There are strong arguments that just exposing the right helped Obama win the presidency. So perhaps the extreme Republicans are the most effective allies we have. Would, then, an angry take-no-prisoners left have the equivalent effect for the the right?

No. It would be worse. When the left gets mad as heck and starts screaming the US has a knee-jerk reaction to shut them up quicker than a gay-pride parade in Saudi Arabia. Remember the 2004 election cycle? Lots of angry protesters. Did we get anywhere?

But that doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't do something to harness the anger and outrage. Back then it was about Iraq - it was anger and hatred of basically one man, George Bush. It was therefore primarily political. The list of the guilty when it comes to the financial collapse contains just as many Republicans as Democrats. It's not primarily a political anger. Which is why it's possible to catch some of the populist wind-force (there's that analogy again) and still not be blown off course. It's possible to give that dissatisfaction a constructive direction and not let it spiral into the sulfurous pit of demonic rage that we're seing currently.

Actually the fact that the anger is being so inarticulately expressed by the right ought to indicate to us that it only the left has the ability and the moral clarity to turn that energy into something positive. Congratulations, President Obama, on getting back in the Health Care game and addressing Congress. Nice to have you back. You took the fight to them. Now let's tap into the anger and frustration people feel about the financial system, and make some actual change and reform.

With liberty and justice for all ...

2009-09-17T03:54:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to wonder if the United States needs to hire some consultants to come in and fix this mess. How's that for unorthodox? Foreigners.

It gets worse. I think the consultants need to be ... the English.

Mark Mardell is the BBC's North America editor. He has a blog about America. He is about as English as they come, and looks a bit like Uncle Vernon in Harry Potter. But he's got us figured out.

Discussing Jimmy Carter's accusation that the right-wing anger at Obama is fundamentally about race not policy, Mr. Mardell quotes a South Carolina restauranteer:

Mr Walker's [the restaurant owner] analysis is interesting too. Social equality, he says, has been achieved - a black man with money can walk in anywhere - but Mr Obama is looking to promote economic equality, and that is what some whites cannot stand, and call socialism.

Yes, that is exactly what the problem is. That is the elephant in the room (see my last post). The "founding fathers"(who are consistently misquoted and misunderstood) were business-owning, land-owning aristocrats and entrepreneurs who were angry because of the ECONOMIC unfairness of the colonial government. But you would never know that if you listened to the current-day account. Instead they were supposedly fighting for abstract rights only.

Actually it was all about - basically only about - economic rights, but since the "founding fathers" were gentlemen who never were going to starve or go homeless the economic rights being discussed were about taxation. Rich man's problems.

That's what America has lacked, that's what the left has failed to give us: a narrative about how the economic inequality in America is a problem that is worth solving; that we have the both the right and the ability to solve. The poor men are still fighting the rich man's battles - battles that were never theirs, and which cause them to neglect their own best interest. It's Joe the Plumber. He's never going to be one of the people who are at all affected by Obama's tax policy. But he doesn't understand that. It's like the confederate soldier dying for his 'rights'. What rights? He didn't even own a cotton field or slaves. But he died for the people who did.

From what I can tell, the violent resistance to civil rights in the 50's and 60's in the southern US was more about economic interest than race. The white men didn't want to have to compete with black men to become foreman or manager. I think that whole thing cooled down not because the white men saw the error of their ways but because they figured out that even with civil rights reformed they would still be sitting comfortably ontop of the best jobs some fifty years later.

That is what is so distressing to them now. Maybe the country might possibly be willing to admit 'economic equality' into the pantheon of golden ideals currently populated by such notions as 'freedom of speech' and 'right to bear arms'.

What about the right to eat food?

A different bedtime story please

2009-09-16T11:50:00.000-07:00

Watch this video if you have time. I never feel prouder to be an American than when I see intelligent articulate people display this kind of cunning and sense of irony. Amazing.

Ok here's the thing with the health care debate...

Competition
The democratic talking point is that a public option (which I want) would make for competition on the market place. Um ... no it wouldn't. The government can't be a fair competitor ever. They make the rules and can move the goalposts. There are ways of breaking up monopolies and ensuring competition. It's called anti-trust.

This is a loosing argument. No one believes that the government can compete. Competition is either not happening as it is, in which case it's an anti-trust matter, or it isn't working and we need to add something other than competition. A public option is the latter. So this talking point is defunct. A bad argument in favor of a good cause is a terrible burden for the cause. Flies in perfume. It's in the bible.

Attractive alternatives
Another thing that Rachel Maddow brings up in this clip above is that the far-right argument on health care is incoherent, and that the Republicans have nothing whatsoever to offer in the form of alternative solutions. Then she - very rightly! - points out that all the anger being poured out in this debate is misplaced anger which ought to be directed towards the health insurance and drug companies and other corporations that are running our country into the ground. Yes. That is where the anger should be directed.

But the problem is that liberals in the US has never provided the people with a single, coherent alternative to the right-wing's narrative. There is no national rich-man-exploits-poor-man narrative as an alternative explanation for why people are suffering.

The Republicans are offering no viable alternative to the health care reforms that the democrats are currently proposing. Liberals in the US has never offered a viable alternative narrative to the conservatives' "the government is going to take all my money and turn my kids into atheists" narrative.

I understand that a large contributing factor was the cold war and fear of communists. Exploitation is a decidedly communist word. And don't even get me started on proletariat. But surely people as smart as Obama and the people who put him in power could make a concerted effort to change the narrative now? It's the elephant in the room but as long as the left is too scared to talk about it they lack credibility.

Here's a checklist, Mr. President, if you're listening. The new narrative must meet these criteria:

1. It must be first and foremost about liberty and freedom. You're nothing in America if you're not a freedom fighter. This is a fight of democracy against its foes.

2. This cannot be weighed down by the tired and self-pitying rhetoric of the US union movement. The United States deserves much better unions than it has. They have failed us. It's a long story. Just don't go there. Protectionism is particularly dreadful, Mr. "don't send my job overseas". That's not what you need to complain about right now.

3. The Federal Reserve is just as hated on the right as on the left. Find common scape-goats and scape the heck out of them. I'm not sure whether they have anything to do with it, but that doesn't matter.

4. Americans hate people who don't take responsibility for themselves. If you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you don't deserve to have boots. Paint the culprits as free-loaders. Remember how much white people hate black mothers on welfare? What if they could hate health insurance and drug corporations just as much? It can't be about jealousy because American's won't allow themselves to feel jealous. It has to be about scorn for the lazy and complacent.

Do you need Africa?

2009-09-07T11:31:00.000-07:00

Find out why you need africa

Are you saved?

2009-09-07T11:17:00.001-07:00

This film expresses the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be saved.

Happy Ramadan

2009-09-02T09:54:00.000-07:00

Pinkie-swear that you're going to tell the truth ... did you know that it was Ramadan?

I cheated of course. We have two Kurdish families living on the next floor up, and a mosque in the basement of the building next to ours. So I couldn't have missed it if I tried.

Last year when we moved into this neighborhood - it was actually the same time of year too - I was out taking my daughter Julia for an evening stroll. A little four or five-year-old middle-eastern kid ran up to me and handed me a nectarine. He said his dad had told him to give it to my little girl.

I looked over and 'dad' was organizing a game of soccer with the other kids. I waved. He waved.

In the sunset of a late-summer evening they had just come from evening prayers and were breaking the fast. They wanted to share the joy of Ramadan. It was a warmer welcome to the neighborhood than I have ever received anywhere else.

I can't bring myself to write an apologetic for Ramadan and Islam. Not my jurisdiction. I can say that the headline on the first day of Ramadan in the local paper was 'A time for angelic-deeds'. I knew immediately what they were talking about. Nectarines and the like.

I was reminded that it was Ramadan this morning when I stopped by the newspaper stand in the middle of the University Campus on my way to work. I bought chewing gum and a coffee for 27 sek. And I spotted the poster above. It's from a cell-phone company selling pay-as-you-go cards. It says, "Extra Cheap calls during Ramadan". And it has a list of special prices to places like Afghanistan and Algeria. This is in the heart of Sweden's equivalent to MIT.

That's just good plain marketing - nothing more moral or philosophical than that. Like it or not, it's good business. You have to talk to your customers, and if they are Muslim you have to wish them happy Ramadan (which probably sounds dreadfully glib and flippant. Sorry. I don't have any idea what the tradition is. If anyone knows, set me straight: what's the Ramadan equivalent of Merry Christmas?).

"Special prices for Ramadan ... welcome to the 21st century!" I told the girl in the shop.
"I know!" she blurted back. "The other day there was a two-page ad in the paper for a new electronics chain that opened up. It was all in Arabic. Not a word of Swedish. Isn't it great!"
"Yeah, and I heard a commercial on the radio the other day that was all in Somali. I have no idea what it was for."

We were basking in the light of our perceived multi-cultural in-tuneness. It was like two math nerds giving each other high fives and doing a victory dance with air-guitars because they solved a problem. It's a little bit pathetic, but we were so happy that we didn't care.

Blog etiquette

2009-08-28T10:55:00.000-07:00

SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization. If you really really want people to happen to find your website or blog, you employ the art of SEO.

Google and the others use complex algorithms to find the page that is most likely to match your search. The algorithms give preference to blogs. Especially important are which words you highlight for the link. If I highlight "click here" then it doesn't have half the effect that this does: a really cool friend of mine who sells furnature in Greenville NC says ... If someone googles "furnature, greenville" I will have helped them to find my buddy.

Think about keywords too. Make sure the keywords you use appear in the text. No more than ten per page, otherwise the search engine docks you points. In order of relevance because the first one has the most power. Separate them with commas! Otherwise the search engine can't distinguish them.

So when you see a cool article and want to help them out, link to them like I do (most of the time). This includes the links at the side of your blog.

We stand on guard for Thee

2009-08-27T09:42:00.001-07:00

The United States has once again, but this time in a more celebrated way, been bested by the neighbors to the north. If you still think we in the US invented and are the sole proprietors of liberty and freedom, read this article about how Canada got Facebook to play nice.

Last month the social network was found to breach Canadian law by holding on to users' personal data indefinitely.
Facebook has now agreed to make changes to the way it handles this information and be more transparent about what data it collects and why.
It will also make it clear that users can deactivate or delete their account.

How does a child look when it grows up without any roll models? If the child is never taught, how smart can it possibly be? The American identity is about how we are supposed to have invented democracy and just about everything else from the screw driver to the television. Actually we didn't invent any of them (look here, here and here).

May your hockey pucks be swift and your syrup thick, oh revered neighbor to the north!

How not to get sued to death

2009-08-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin has made a new stab at thought. Apparently what our health care system needs is not a solution to the problem of uninsured people who are dying, but we need to help doctors not get sued so much. If we just curb frivolous law suits then everything will be fine.

Less malpractice lawsuits would indeed save a lot of time and money, especially on malpractice insurance premiums. No doubt about it: less million-dollar judgments mean lower premiums.

The best way to make that happen, though, is curb malpractice, not stop suits. You can tell Palin and company are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries because those are just the people who would love the system continue to be the way that it is - albeit with less accountability.

The juggernaut here is that every decision is 'best made between doctor and patient'. That's not how doctor-patient relationships work these days in the US. First of all, the patient is more a customer than a patient. Second, people who are hell-bent on getting the pills they want or the operation they want will go shopping from clinic to clinic till they find someone who tells them what they want to hear. Doctors get intimidated and basically bought off. And the only way to stop that is to be a bit nosey. Something has to be done

The legal system in the US where doctors can get sued for millions is a GOOD system. They should get sued for millions when they dish out drugs irresponsibly and perform unneccessary operations. The doctor in town that will most easily write a prescription is the doctor who does best. Everyone knows it. Doctors are often enablers not healers. They should get sued. The premiums should go up. But this is another greed-driven industry that failed to self-regulate. And so unfortunately we the people have to try and do something about it.

Doctors face a bit of a bias with juries. Juries want to stick it to the doctor-man. But isn't that because they know that many doctors are greedy crooks? Doctors over-charge and exploit. It doesn't make bias right, but it tells you what America really thinks of its health care system. I think on average that most of the judgments are fair. I trust the people. Palin doesn't. Don't let a jury of your peers decide, let the woman who can't form a coherent sentence.

If you don't believe my account of doctor-patient relationships just watch all the drug adds on TV: 'ask your doctor if Killsitall is right for you'. That means - tell your doctor to give you Killsitall or you're going to another doctor. The drug companies know how it works, but the rest of the US is still in denial. 'Between you and your doctor'? - just think 'Michael Jackson'.

In Sweden the foreign minister was assassinated a few years ago. Second time in two weeks I mention it - what can I say. I was sitting on the bus at the central station and I looked out the window. Someone was raising the flag in the main square - at noon. Usually they raise the flag in the morning, and only on hollidays. The flag went all the way up ... and then it came back down a bit. Half-mast. That's when I knew she was dead.

Anyway, when the killer was caught (he was actually insane and got convicted anyway, tragic) when he was caught the compensation he was ordered to pay the family was 400,000 kronor each: that's about $55,000. That's the damages that a murderer has to pay the victim's family for their pain. It's pathetic. It's a slap in the face. If the wrongdoer were a doctor with millions, and a malpractice insurance tht didn't regulate well enough I think that the number should be fifty five million. But that's just me. I am proud of the US system of punitive damages - where you take into account the size of the wrongdoer's wealth. It should hurt.

Republicans are being paid off to tell the country that Medicare is going to be turned into a concentration camp. You won't be able to get the treatment you need. Actually that's already the case. You can't get the treatment you need, like transplants and anything the insurance companies call 'experimental'. People can't afford health insurance because of all the malpractice going on. Best way to fix it: stop doctors from committing malpractice. Stop them from giving antibiotics to people with a common cold. Newsflash: it doesn't help. Stop the consumerist attitude Americans have towards healthcare. Guess what, you're not a customer, you're a patient.

Blowing in the wind

2009-08-22T22:28:00.000-07:00

Astrid Lindgren is, if you didn't know, my ultimate ultimate hero. I've been watching Madicken over and over again, as it's Julia's new favorite.

The story of Madicken is set during WWI but you wouldn't know it because Sweden wasn't very involved. Madicken is an eight or nine-year-old girl who comes from one of the richest families in a small town. And her arch-rival is Mia - or Lice-Mia as they call her. Mia is from the poorest family in town and doesn't even have shoes. Mia is tough as nails and resists almost every attempt on anyone's part to be nice to her. She never has any food to bring to school for lunch, but refuses Madicken's offer to share her food.

Astrid Lindgren confronted the class structure of her time with these stories. Here's an anecdote that is especially telling. At school the teacher comes into class and reviews the creation story with the children. She asks Madicken to tell about how God created the first man. Madicken is pretty much the teacher's pet. She stands up and chirps out the story about how God formed Adam from the clay.

"What did he do then? Does anybody know? Mia?"

Mia stands up and stares out the window. She is an illigitimate child and gets lots of hassle for that. She probably hasn't eaten, and has to come into class and get compared to the rich girl who has both parents and a nanny and all the food she can eat.

"Look at me when I'm talking to you," says the teacher. "What did God do then, to Adam?"

"I don't know! Maybe he hung him out to dry."

"Perhaps ... " says the teacher, giving up on Mia.

"Madicken, what did God do next?"

Teacher's pet stands up and says, "God breathed his spirit into Adam's nose so that he came alive."

If you don't see the irony, I'll spell it out. Here are these religious people teaching children bible stories in school but not giving them food. They are more than happy to 'take responsibility' for their education but not for their well being. And they blame the poor illigitimate children for being underfed and over-burdened, making them to feel worthless and lazy.

There really is no point in setting this story in the early 20th century because in much of the western world it is just as true in the early 21st century. I don't mind asking every adult to take as much responsibility for themselves as is reasonable, but children are a different matter.

On hugs and cuddles

2009-08-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

Recently Julia has become MUCH more cuddly. Julia's my 2-year-old who has begun going to preschool five days a week. I stayed at home with her from October last year until two weeks ago, and full-time preschool is very new territory.

The first few days of easing into to it - she was only there for a few hours at first - all went well without issue. But when I dropped her off on Thursday she started crying and wanted me to stay.

Crying - as a sign of sadness and not anger - has not been a big part of Julia's life before (for an infant crying is a sign of distress mostly, not sadness). And hugging hasn't either. Previously she would give a hug when she's asked to, but it's been in small stiff bursts. But now ... she wants to sit in my lap and hug while I feed her breakfast. She doesn't want to every let go - ever ever ever! And she seems to have an endless well of sadness and tears at the slightest provocation.

I don't want to dwell on it - she'll get over the shock. It's a transition period. She has a lot of feelings to process, so I'm not worried. But it made me think. When she had me beside her all day every day she didn't have the need to express herself physically. When we don't see each other all day she wants to make up for lost time. Suddenly she sees the other children crying about this and that and that allows her to access new emotions. It's like a third dimension: whereas before she had happy and angry emotions, now she has sad ones too.

I think if our lives were a bit more natural she would need to hug less but she would have discovered crying earlier. If we worked in and around our home as our ancestors have done for most of history, she would never have had this separation anxiety to deal with. But she would have seen a lot of other children crying and discovered some of these emotions earlier. The last year has been very isolated for both her and for me. We are surrounded by strangers, not cousins and family.

I wonder if our society's obsession with sex and physical intimacy - even its obesession with displays of emotion - derive somewhat from our physical distance from each other, and our mobility. Maybe the unemotive and reserved older generations never needed what we find we need.

Disecting Fear

2009-08-20T12:12:00.001-07:00

Here's a question for all you blogg-readers (I'm going out on a limb here, so help me out and show me that someone is reading!): how do you handle people who are irrationally fearful. Whether it's on a one-to-one personal level or on a societal scale. How do you deal with that? The liberal strategy in America right now seems to be to ignore them. That's my first instinct. But is that really the best? What do you think?

I got some interesting feed-back on this post. So interesting and my reply was going to be so long that I just decided to make a new post out of the discussion. Here's what Jon said, and you'll see my replies below.

Jon:
... I agree with the general point you are making here, but I was wondering, by way of follow up: how does U.S. healthcare effect the world? You said that "the American Taliban are ruining our country and raping our world. There are more than six billion human beings outside the US who are counting on you to put a stop to the them." Did you mean to say this as a general statement, or do you see a direct relation between the rape of the world and our current healthcare debate???

Herman:
Hmmm ... I was a bit fuzzy. I just think that the cavalier attitude towards human suffering is at the heart of both issues. If you are convinced that Jesus will come back just as soon as (fill-in-the-blank) then this-worldly issues like health care or the environment are unimportant. I think the religious right in the states propagates a culture that is callous and calculating. But I think it would be a stretch to say that health-care in the US is a direct cause of world suffering.

Jon:
Interesting that you mention the lack of this-worldly concerns.....One of the talking points that has razzed up the religious right is "loss of liberty." I've heard that used a good deal at Tea Party rallies and by many politically conservative Christian thinkers. It's interesting, because I think it reveals a deep self-interest: don't take away my right to do what I want to do and when I want to do it. The version that is presented, of course, is a bit more polished up: protect the liberty that God gives you from the evil people (Obama) who are trying to take it away and control your life by controlling health care.

So, this-worldly concerns do come through quite strong for those on the right, at least as far as I've been hearing in my neck 'o the woods.

Herman:
I see what you mean. However people who think rationally about this life think long-term atleast sometimes. But conservatives are first of all prudish and fundamentalist and only then self-serving. Their thinking has this short-sighted and impractical quality to it where they cut their noses off to spite their faces.

When an American conservatives bring out the 'liberty' language it is the exception that proves the rule. On issues where the whole world is involved there is no this-worldly pragmatism. I mean, I have met many people - you must have as well - who are not only sincere but also immovable in their belief that the rapture is going to happen any second. War and famine are not things we need to address with votes and money. It's all part of the end times. God is punishing this or that nation. It's all part of a cosmic chess game that the initiated can see but no one else. The real work to be done is in the mission field, forget solar power or the UN.

But the same people are, as you pointed out, rabidly defending their 'liberty'. It's the exception that prooves the rule. If this is self-interest it's short-sighted self-interest because they are the victims of the current system as well. I think it's self-righteousness and not self-interest.

A perfect example is a friend of mine who told me he would move to New York because they outlawed spanking there. The government had no business telling him what he could and could not do to his kids. I suspect he does want the government to protect children from abusive parents, it's just that the Bible says one thing (so he thinks) about where to draw the line, and the evil humanists say another. So actually he wants to protect his liberty to evade discussing that matter on a level with people who don't share his beliefs. They want to reason, he wants to quote scripture.

It's all very calvinistic - it's the political equivalent to the doctrine of predestination. In the case of predestination, what's important is what you do and say, not who hears it or how it's received. Those who are predestined to be saved will be saved no matter what. It's not about them. But in the case of politics what's important is how you live not how your neighbors perceive it or even how it appears to affect them. Even if they appear to suffer or get angry it doesn't matter. The ones who are predestined to be saved will be saved, and the others don't matter. It's perfectly predictable that calvinism has such a heavy-handed influence on conservative America - because America is where all the puritans fled. So there are two strands mixed into the mindset of conservative America: religious persecution and moral superiority. In either case the goal is to defeat, not to convince.

I think the real issue when it comes to the tea parties is that a liberal won the presidential election and they're afraid that the swarms of liberal locusts are going to brain-wash their children and turn them into tree-hugging sodomites. That's the liberty they are afraid of loosing - the freedom from immoral influences in their communities. Or more uncharitably: the freedom from having to submit to democratic rule where a voice is given to non-believers. Infidel can have a say just so long as they don't constitute a majority. Conservatives are afraid that the liberals are going to destroy what's left of the puritan death-grip on the country's conscience. It's not about health care. The fear of an immoral take over is so deep among conservatives that it easily lends heat to other fears. I don't think any health care debate could possibly generate this much fear and irrationality if there weren't a much greater fear hidden under the surface.

But I have to add that the American system of government is based on the fear of the unlikely. Even terrible people saying terrible things have the right to free speech. Why do we have a so frightfully consistent freedom of speech? Well there's the (extremely unlikely) chance that if we don't, one day the other side will be in the majority and we will need the same protection. We have to have the second amendment, so the argument goes, so we can overthrow the government if they get too uppity. The system of checks and balances is all about the unlikely. And don't get me started with state's rights.

I can't for the life of me come up with an objective and systematic way of finding a good balance. I agree with the freedom of speech logic but not the gun part. You have to protect against the unlikely but not the ridiculous. And by the way, I think that some liberals DO want to teach conservative christians' children in public schools that homosexuality is good, suggesting they try it out themselves and see. There ARE people who want to do that. There are people who want to use the power of the government to exclude, intimidate and censor religious people. It's not all far-fetched, that's the thing. If there were some way to assuage convervatives' fears and get the level-headed majority of the center-left to speak in conciliatory terms (you know, I always like to lead by example ...hahahahah!) then we might get a more level-headed debate.

But the terms of the conversation need to be that we are talking about the best way to ensure our this-worldly long-term well being, and that the majority rules. People who are convinced that all morality is revealed by God have to consent to speak as if they were utilitarians just for the time being, and create a framework that is pragmatic and not idealogical. I think we could keep the first amendment, and get liberals to settle for honest debate instead of infiltrating our kids minds so as to liberate them from their oppressive religous parents. We could ban guns and give people health care but not create a society of defenseless and fearful recipients of government hand-outs. Religious conservatives in other countries manage often to participate in such conversations but a large portion of America's conservatives aren't willing to. I think the whole Puritan thing is a large part of the difference.

The Patriarch

2009-08-19T01:37:00.000-07:00

There are a few reasons Sweden is not a republic. First reason is because the US is a republic, and having a President brings to mind images of Bush and Nixon. All you American Nationalists out there listen up: the US hasn't been a beacon of democracy and freedom for a very very long time, so stop propagating that lie. I swear if it weren't for the United States more than half of the constitutional monarchies in Europe would have turned Republic by now.

Secondly, a president would be a decisive, visible representation of the political will of the people. Opinions are ugly in Sweden. Scroll down a few posts and see my comments on Jante's Law. In Sweden, controversial issues must not be brought into the parlor.

But the most importantly reason Sweden could never handle having an elected head of state who enjoyed any real power is that Sweden has daddy-issues.

Let's clarify terms. I don't think that fathers/husbands SHOULD be the only guiding star in a family. I don't think that authority is exclusively masculine and relational thinking exclusively feminine. That's not the way my wife and I live. But like it or not, traditional gender-roles still affect us all. Especially when it comes to the way we use our family framework to interpret the rest of the world.

In the Swedish psyche the Father is the persecutor, the abuser. Here's one example from a pillar of Swedish culture, Fanny & Alexander:

(From Wikipedia) The story is set in 1907-08 Uppsala, Sweden and deals with a young boy named Alexander, his sister Fanny, and their well-to-do family, the Ekdahls. The siblings' parents are both involved in theater and are happily married until the father's sudden death. Shortly thereafter, the mother, Emilie, finds a new suitor in the local bishop, a handsome widower, and accepts his proposal of marriage, moving into his ascetic home and putting the children under his stern and unforgiving rule. He is particularly hard on Alexander, trying to break his will by every means. The children and their mother live as virtual prisoners in the bishop's house until finally the Ekdahl family intervenes. With help from an old friend, a Jewish antiques dealer, as well as some magic, the children are smuggled out of the house, but the Ekdahls' attempts to bribe or threaten the bishop into divorce fail. Emilie, by now pregnant, slips her husband a sedative and flees as he sleeps, after which a fire breaks out and the bishop is burnt to death. In the meantime, Alexander has met the Jewish merchant's mysterious nephew, Ismael Retzinsky, and fantasized about his stepfather's death – it is as if Alexander's fantasy comes true as he dreams it. The story ends on a mainly happy, life-affirming note, with the christening of Emilie's and the late bishop's daughter and the illegitimate daughter of Alexander's uncle, Gustav Ekdahl; but Alexander encounters the bishop's ghost, signalling that he will never be completely free of him.

Sweden's experience with authority figures is shocking. Compulsary parish examinations were held in Sweden from 1686 until ca. 1900. The priests would gather the parishoners and examine them in literacy and knowledge of Luthers Catachism. They gave each person a grade. This might seem like a fairly innocent use of the state religion to promote literacy and basic awareness of the religion; Luther did, after all, criticize the Latin-only Catholic Church because its members often didn't understand any of its teachings. But parish examinations were a forum just as given to authoritarian intimidation and corporal punishment as anything else. Woe to him that has not memorized his catechism, for he shall be put to shame in front of everyone. If the priest didn't dish out the corporal punishment, the senior man of the farm would. It was actually prescribed by law that the senior man in each farm would use 'husaga' - house-beatings - to keep all his subordinates, man, woman and child, in line.

Given the menacing phantom of an angry man (angry God?) that lurks in the subconscious of just about every Swede, it's not surprising how much of an over-reaction there has been during the last 100 years of secularization. Who do you turn to when dad is an angry alcoholic patriarch who might send you to hell? Mother, of course.

There are a lot of conclusions to draw here - one of them regards the Swedish love of self-pitty. You need an abusive patriarch if you're going to feel sorry for yourself, and so Swedes will see dark authoritarian forces where there are none to justify their constant belly-aching. But that's another story.

I'm not going to try to tell the story of Swedish feminism either. It's not what I'm getting at. The person I'm getting at is the Über-Matriarch of Sweden ... the King.

You might say that it's contradictory for me to call the (male) King a Matriarch. But bear in mind that he doesn't have any power besides making people feel good about being Swedish. Sometimes, like when the foreign minister Anna Lindh was assassinated, he comes on TV and gives the country a big hug. He shows up at hospital openings and public holidays and makes uncontroversial statements everyone can feel good about.

So who would the Patriarch be in Sweden if the King is a Matriarch? No one. They don't have a strong leader. That seat is empty. He has been deposed.

The main reason Sweden is not a republic is because the majority of people haven't forgiven authority figures for being people like the Bishop in Fanny & Alexander, or for being the mean old teacher in Madicken who hits young children with a cane. They haven't forgiven the God who threatens to send them to the eternal fire, or the priest who teaches you to memorize the verses about loving your neighbor while threatening you with humiliation and physical pain.

It doesn't matter if an eventual president might be a woman. That's not the point. The point is that the whole package of traditional male gender roles and decisive authority and leadership is all one big bundle of conflictedness and anxiety in this country. A ridiculous relic of the middle ages - the Monarchy - is the preferred symbol of the country that gave is the Nobel Prize and Astrid Lindgren. Having an elected head of state would mean coming to terms with the idea that a good person doesn't have to be perfect, and that strength can be used for good.

On the 2nd Amendment

2009-08-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

In Somalia right now you have the uncontested, absolute and total right to bear arms. Did I just google the Somali constitution to find that out? No. But if the news is any indication the Somali constitution isn't worth the goat-hide parchment it's written on. And I don't know a thing about it. But there are guns. Mess with someone and there is a real good chance you will get shot.

When arms flow freely the individual is not empowered. Arms make clans. Or gangs. Or mafia. Whatever you want to call them. Armed populations turn into pyramid-structures where large groups fight to maintain power. It's not the armed-and-dangerous cowboy on the prairie fighting off the robbers. It's just robbers.

But that's not the point, actually.

Let's suppose the federal government went rogue on us. Let's suppose we were living in a police state and they suspended the bill of rights or something like that. And what if people took all the guns they had and started organizing. What would happen? It doesn't matter if you have a few thousand angry citizens with sawed-offs and Colt 45's: the US Army has drones and tanks, and mortars, and stinger missiles, and even nukes. If every gun owner were mobilized at once they wouldn't make a dent in the power of the US government. Sorry. You can carry a gun to the town hall meetings but you can't do squat to bring down the government. So that's that little juggernaut dispelled.

But that's not the point either.

The real point is the hyperbolic and wholly unhinged idea that the government can and should be afraid of the citizens. It's the ugly step-sister to the Cinderella which is our system of checks and balances. Yes the branches of the government should constantly check each other. But when Jefferson said the government should be afraid of the people he was in the midst of performing one of his rhetorical little pirouettes and momentarily left the ground.

The government is us! The people in congress are just normal everyday people. Ok, not that normal, but they are no more maladjusted than your average TV-preacher or High School principal. And then there are all the minions of civil servants who are just work-a-day people for cripes sake.

What's with all the demonization of 'the government'? What happened to 'we the poeple'? The reason the United States would never become a police state is not because Janey's got a gun. It's because the Army and the Police force and everything inbetween are all populated by mortal, normal, every-day Americans. In order to 'take over' the government you have to intimidate or corrupt an overwhelming majority of them. That's not an easy thing to do. But it would be a whole lot easier if you passed out more guns because a) the hot-heads among them would suddenly become emboldened, and thus more easily corruptable and b) the level-headed ones would decline but be intimidated by all the hot-heads who had the guns.

You know, first of all I don't like getting into an exegesis of Jefferson simply because he was a mortal, western, sheltered and frightfully ordinary person. Stop diefying him, America, for Pete's sake! But, let's parse some words shall we?

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

In what sense should government fear the people? In the sense that everyone is armed and dangerous, or in the sense that they can vote? In the first case the government is paralized, in the second they are empowered. Secondly, who are 'the people'? In Jefferson's ideal world it was the class of yoemen; land-owning gentlemen of the colonies who had been denied representation in parliament. It was not every tom, dick and harry. You were probably not part of his grand vision. Sorry. It was not a matter of every individual versus every civil authority. It was a matter of states rights, local councils versus geographically distant kings. If we reinterpret Jefferson we might say:

When it is in the interest of the centralized government to placate local councils they will tend to be more responsible in their governance. But when the local councils are held hostage to and hamstrung by the centralized government the centralized government often acts in an impulsive and thoughtless manner.

Back to Somalia ... the current government meets in the neighboring country of Djibouti. Are they really the government? The next time you talk about the right to bear arms refuse to talk in terms of colonial New England and talk in terms of current-day Somalia.

On year later: the Quakers

2009-08-18T00:12:00.000-07:00

Okay, one year was a long time to take a break, but hey! Blogging is voluntary so give me a break.

Obama won, by the way. If you were holding your breath this whole time wondering whether McCain really was going to lose ... well he did.

Thought of the day: Quakers. These are some far-out folks. They really value consensus. They will keep talking and talking and talking until there is consensus. If you ask me, consensus is just a difficult word to spell correctly ten times in a row. I personally want to write it concensus. But I digress.

I was thinking about the second continental congress and the philadelphia convention 8 (1787 and 1775 respectively). We were taught in school that these demi-gods called founding fathers were so extraordinary at comprimise and debate. They talked it over until they reached something that approximated a consensus. (there's that word again). We were taught to idealize the notion of agreeing to disagree, giving everyone a fair hearing. The founding fathers were supposedly gentlemen genuinely interested in discussion and exchange of ideas. Don't know if that was the case but ... I do suspect strongly that the ideals they had were strongly influenced by the Quaker value of consensus.

Politics is, in theory, not something ugly in the US. Or at least it wasn't for those demi-gods. With some modifications I might say - neither Jefferson nor Adams wanted anything to do with parties. But discussing political matters was the business of gentlemen. Look at the tea parties and neanderthal town hall meetings today and ask yourself whether it's still the business of gentlemen. Gentlemen (and gentlewomen! Don't go rogue on me now, girls) stay away and hide their heads in the soffa because today's debate is uglier than WWF or tractor-pulling.

In Sweden politics never has been polite conversation. There have never been idealized demi-gods who discuss in gentlemanly salons with plush velvet curtains. No high rhetoric ... well I guess Palme could be a bit of an exception but his great moments came from standing up to the great Satan, not from domestic policy. Anyway, Swedish politics has never been let into the parlour. A gentleman doesn't debate fairly and exchange ideas. A gentleman shuts up and drinks his brännvin. The first article of the law of Jante is classically known as 'you shall not think you are anything special'. But actually, the real first article is 'shut the hell up'.

My theory is that if Swedes weren't so afraid of politics and of the prospect of being allowed to have an opinion they might overturn the monarchy and install a real and effective democracy. If Americans weren't so wedded to the idea of these consensus-buidling demi-god founding fathers they might be willing to admit that it was all fairytales and myth. The last word on the role of government was not written by Jefferson. Debate is hard business.

It's tough to be friends with a republican. What can I say. If you manage it, you should get a medal. It wasn't easy for those demi-god Jeffeson types who sat in their studies all day and had their nails buffed by slaves. Maybe harder because they were so sheltered.

The real brains of the US are sitting at home shaking their heads and saying to themselves: this isn't REAL democratic debate. Real democratic debate is supposed to be impersonal and respectful. If this is what passes for democracy now days I'm going to stay home and watch Keith Olberman. Well, Mr. "I'm too well respected by my friends to tell them what I really think" I have news for you: the American Taliban are ruining our country and raping our world. There are more than six billion human beings outside the US who are counting on you to put a stop to the them. So grow a pair and get back in the game. Write your congressman, go to the town hall meetings, tell your friends what you think. Put a sign on your lawn.

Why Obama can win

2008-08-05T11:31:00.001-07:00

The New York Times reckons that the Republican party is loosing ground in many key states. Read more about it here.

I also found an interesting site called RealClearPolitics.com and they have been tracking all the polls that you can track. Look at this page for statistics that show McCain taking a nose-dive in the stats as Obama's curve points ever upward.

The statistics a la Google

2008-07-29T10:50:00.000-07:00

To heck with the polls! I've found a new way of polling. It's called Google.

(if you want to check these or other stats go to http://trends.google.com and type five words or less, separated by commas; don't forget to select the United States as the region you're searching in, otherwise you'll get very different data)

Google Trends (Part of the Google lab) lets you check trends of keywords that people search for on Google. In order not to invade people's privacy you can't see the exact numbers. You just see how much, say, in May of 2005 the number of searches for the word 'Coca-cola' deviated from it's average. You can also compare how the number of searches for 'Pepsi' compared to 'Coca-cola' during a certain period.

So I'm using this to predict the election. Before the 2004 election Bush out-ranked Kerry in google searches fairly consistently. Kerry made a last stand in August before the election but then it all went to pear-shaped.

Obama is consistently above and beyond McCain in google searches. He outranks McCain far more than Bush ever outranked Kerry. Obama gets 3.5 times as many searches as McCain. He outclases him entirely. Compare Bush's 1.5 times as many searches as Kerry. My theory is that interest equals votes. It's not about how many people agree with you, it's about your ability to capture their interest and get them off their keisters on election day.

Also you can see - and I think this is where the data seriously begins to indicate something - the type of issues that people are most concerned about.

In 2004 searches for the word 'Iraq' were above 'economy', 'Gay Marriage', 'Abortion', and 'Housing'. At times 'housing' rose above Iraq but over all Iraq was higher and when it wasn't they were virtually tied.

What's it look like for 2006? That's when the Republicans were kicked out of congress. Housing outranked Iraq by a factor of 1.4 to 1. Gay marriage was only 7% of housing, whereas back in 2004 it was 15% of the level of housing.

And now for 2008. Housing has not only risen in significance; it now outranks Iraq two to one. That means that twice as many people are going to google and searching for information about housing as are interested in the war in Iraq. And the Economy is a close third behind Iraq for second place, right now it ranks at 39% as many searches as Housing.

In 2004 Environment got only 40% as many searches as housing and only 30% as many as Iraq. It tied with Abortion and Economy. In 2006 the statistics were virtually the same except Iraq and housing had traded places.

So to sum up: people are concerned about housing first, the Iraq second and then the Economy. And most importantly, the Google figures say that Obama will win!

Sagan om republiken fortsätter

2008-07-26T01:07:00.000-07:00

Jag var ute på republik.nu och hittade intressant information:

"Sverige fick inte demokrati förrän 1917-1921. Då ansåg demokratins motståndare att folkstyre var "osvenskt" utan stöd i vår historia. Att dumma seder har en lång historia innebär inte att man inte kan ändra på dem. Dessutom har vi bara haft ärftlig tronföljd sedan Gustav Vasa på 1500-talet. Dessförinnan valdes kungen. Inte enligt vad vi idag kallar demokratiska principer. Men ändå."

"[Ang. argumentet att kungen och dtrottningen är maktlösa och gör ingen skada]...kungen eller drottningen inte alls maktlösa, utan kan med skenbart harmlösa påståenden utöva stor inverkan på den allmänna opinionen.

Ta till exempel Silvias uttalanden om abort. Att rikets första dam fäller sådana omdömen är i högsta grad politiskt och de bevisar att vårt odemokratiskt tillsatta kungapar har makt."

Jag måste tillägga att kungen, drottningen och kronprincessan uttalar sig hela tiden om huruvida man ska ha monarki. De kanske försöker undvika uttalanden om skatter eller penningspolitik men frågan om replubik anser de sig alltid ha rätt att yttra sig om.

Jag har skrivit till några riksdagsledamötter och frågat så här:

"Nästan alla republikan jag pratat med har mycket att säga om principen varför vi inte ska ha en kung men de har påfallande lite att säga om vad för sorts regeringsform vi borde ha.

Har du några idéer? Vad borde man göra istället? Ska vi ha en symbolisk president eller ska en demokratiskt vald statschef också sköta regering - ungefär som i USA? "

Idag är det visserligen lördag så jag väntar ännu på svar ifrån de flesta men Josefin Brink på vänsterpartiet skriver så här:

Vi förespråkar vare sig en amerikansk modell eller en symbolisk president som väljs i ett specifikt val, utan anser att det är via riksdagen man ska utse statschefen. Det rimligaste är att den person som väljs till talman i riksdagen också blir statschef - talmannen har redan idag ganska mycket representativa uppdrag i internationella sammanhang och det skulle gå att utvidga den rollen ytterligare. På så sätt skulle statschefsuppdraget bli en naturlig del i den parlamentariska demokratin istället för ett spektakel vid sidan av.
-------------------------------------------------
Med vänlig hälsning,
Josefin Brink
Riksdagsledamot för Vänsterpartiet

.......................

Tova du säger att folk har en känsla av samhörighet när det har en delad historia. Men jag vet mer om sveriges historia än de flesta svenskar i min ålder - och jag vet ganska lite. Den historia som borde ge oss en känsla av samhörighet är demokratins historia inte tyranins.

Och förresten så menade jag inte att monarkin är orsaken till jantelagen. Jag menar att den är den största symptomen på jantelagen. Du sa att monarkin såsom den är idag - endast en symbol - är ett bevis på att vår kollektiva demokrati fungerar. Jag menar att det är ett symptom på att sverige aldig vågat dra sina demokratiska principer till sin spets. Att monarkin finns kvar trotts att den inte tjänar någonting till är ett symptom på att svensson fortfarande står med mössan i handen och inte vågar avgöra sin egen framtid.

Vi låter kungen stå där framme och synas därför att han har fina kostymer och ett fint slott. Vi vågar inte stå där framme själva. Vi vågar inte bestämma själva vad det är vi vill stå för och synas för. Bättre att låta någon annan göra det åt oss. Vi vill inte att några partiledare ska ha den äran därför att många anser att de flesta politiker är medelmåttiga som bäst och bara skulle skämma ut oss. Men det är vårt ansvar att välja kompetenta ledare som vi kan vara stolta över. Vi får den regering vi förtjänar.

Om svenskar vågade engagera sig skulle de få ledare de kunde vara tillräckligt stolta över så att de vågade låta de synas utomlands ibland - annat än i Bryssel.

Kungen är en dålig vikarie medans folket fortfarande inte har bestämt sig ifall de vågar ha en riktig demokrati.

Ett långt långt åt skogen långt svar - sorry men jag kan inte fatta mig kortare.

2008-07-25T07:10:00.000-07:00

"Intressant jämförelse. Innebär det att nuvarande riksdagspartier har gjort sig omöjliga på samma sätt genom exempelvis sitt agerande i frågan om raslärorna under 20- och 30-talen, förhållandet till Hitlers Tyskland under 30-talet och början av kriget eller andra frågor där värderingarna numera är helt andra? Det ligger ju ändå betydligt närmare i tiden än Gustav II Adolf."

Denna kommentar fick jag angående kungarnas blodiga historia. Ja, skillnaden mellan kungen och partierna är för det första att partierna väljs vart fjärde år, och om de inte uppdaterar sin politik då och då blir de bortvalda. Kungen får ha vilka orimliga - t o m rasistiska - tankar han vill. Nu vet jag inte om han gör det men han kan - och det finns inte ett skit du eller jag skulle kunna göra åt det.

För det andra var det ju du (om det är Tova vill säga) som sa att kungen representerar svensk historia, eller i dina ord:

"The monarchy is the only thing Swedes have that can make them remotely patriotic - and we should be happy we don't have the "need" to do away with it yet. It's historic, and goes back through centuries, and the Swedish royal family is basically stripped of everything of importance, more than any monarchy in the world. They are -- if nothing else -- part of the history of Swedish "collective" democracy."

Det var alltså du som åberopade monarkins historia som skäl till att ha kvar den.

Jag tror, som jag skrev förut, att vi svenskar (nu får jag säga vi) har bra mycket mer än monarkin att vara stolta över. Vilket dåligt betyg du ger ditt eget land! Är kungen verkligen allt vi har att komma med? Monarkin är det sista som gör mig stolt att ha blivit medborgare.

Här kommer ett axplock bland allt man kan vara stolt över, och du kommer inte hitta kungen någonstans:

1. Allemansrätten
2. Låg brottslighet och hög läskunnighet
3. Fackföreningstraditionerna
4. Neutraliteten
5. SKF, Volvo, SAAB (jag hatar Saab just nu men jag måste ändå ta med dem), Ericson, och alla andra teknikjättorna som har startat här.
6. Svenska Ostindiska Kompaniet - att svenskarna inte kom till kina med bössan i handen utan handlade rättvisst.
7. Välfärdssamhället
8. Flyktingpolitiken - den blir inkonsikvent då och då när folk utvisas orättvisst men sverige är ändå det europeiska landet som tar emot flest (tror jag - i alla fall är vi bland topp tre)
9. Miljömedvetenheten - kan också bli bättre men vi ligger flera mil framför t ex USA
10. Föräldrarledigheten
11. Fem-veckorssemester

Ser du kungen någonstans?

Jag har hört någon här säga att kungen marknadsför sverige.

Oerhört ogenomtänkt och knasigt. Är sverige till salu?

Anledningen som sagt till att svenskarna alltid vill hävda landets överlägsenhet är att de aldrig får lov att tycka något bra om sig själva. Jag tror stenhårt på detta. Man är så sport- och prestationsfixerad så det är nästan en perversion. "Sverige vann VM-guld" är svenne-porr. "Sverige vidare till EM", vi år så kåta för en liten smula uppmärksamhet från världen - att de ska se hur världsbäst vi är.

Jag tror att detta bygger på en mycket osund självuppfattning som från början har sin grund i protestantismen. Den lyder ungefär så här: "Jag dugar bara ifall att ... (fyll med valfri krav) ... och ändå får jag aldrig lov att tro att jag duger för då sträcker jag på hals och det går inte för sig". Ens värdighet antas vara villkorsbaserat och ödmjukhet uppfattas som att man avstår ifrån att erkänna att man har uppfyllt villkoren.

Jag känner någon som arbetar på ett industri i halland där de försökte starta en till fabrik i indien. Det handlar om precisionsverktyg. Det var precis samma produktionsmaskiner. Precis samma process. Precis samma teknologi men det gick inte att sälja precisionsverktyg med etiketten 'Made in India'. Världen vill inte ha precisionsverktyg från mörkhyade Ghandissar.

Och det är en sådan värderingssystem som ligger till grunden egentligen, tror jag, för den allmänna 'sverige är världsbäst och kungen ska ut och evangelisera åt oss' inställningen. Mynten har alltså två sidor och på den ena sidan vinkar kungen och drottningen, men på den andra sidan är det tydligt att man gärna vill slå mynt (ursäkta min metaforsförvirring) av världens fördomar att blonda, blåögda människor är bättre än alla andra. Det är sådan marknadsföring som sverige vill ha ifrån kungen. Det tas för givet att det finns en skala med bättre och sämre länder. Vi talar inte om det därför att vi inte får. Men vi vill bevisa världen att vi fortfarande är däruppe i elitklubben.

Jag vill att sverige lugnar ner sig och börjar ifrågasätta värderingssystemet som gör ens värde så villkorsbundet. Man mår mycket bättre om man bara är istället för att alltid oroa sig ifall man duger till. Man ska vara duktig. Man ska vara framgångsrik. Man ska vara snäll. Ska ska ska. Det är ett ord som egentligen är svåröversättligt till engelska därför att den icke-lutherska världen till viss mån saknar motsvarande koncept.

Det finns mycket att vara stolt över men det finns faktiskt ett mindre dysfunktionellt sätt att uppfatta sig själv - såväl som individ som nation - som inte utgår ifrån några av vare sig gud, kyrkan eller partiet utsedda villkor utan ifrån ens egen inre kompass. Och denna självuppfattning stannar inte vid konstaterandet om vad vi är - som om det enda vi ville ha vore ett erkännande eller utlåtande om vår duglighet. Den funktionella självuppfattning vill handla.

Den funktionella självuppfattningen nöjer sig med att sprida demokrati, mänskliga rättigheter, solidaritet. Hos en sådan uppfattning finns ingen behov av att man håller upp en kung som ingenting gjort i sina livsdagar som ett bevis på att vi är bäst (eller bättre?). Tänk om någon fick representera oss som hade visat sin förmåga att främja våra värderingar utomlands! Tänk om vi slutade vara så barsligt fixerade med hur världen uppfattar oss och istället fick en exekutiv som kunde hålla oss själva till svars utifrån dessa värderingar.

Därför behöver vi en republik!

2008-07-24T15:15:00.000-07:00

Ok jag vill inte halshugga kungen. Det räcker med att han bara står åt sidan.

Du har en viss poäng med att det skulle bli ett tomrum ifall vi inte hade en monarki. Min poäng är att det redan finns ett tomrum. Det behövs ett starkare inte ett svagare exekutiv, och kungen kan av nödvändighet inte var annat än en prydnad.

Jag tror att dagens svensk ser ofta kungen som ett symbol för sverige. Men liksom kungens ämbete är symbolen och idévärlden kring den färgstark till ytan men fullständigt tom till innehåll.

Vad är har sverige egentligen att vara stolt över idag? Kanske välfärdssamhället? Allmänna sjukvård? 100%-ig läskunnighet bland barnen? Vårt internationella anseende som neutral part? Vetenskap och teknologi?

Var är kungens plats i något av detta? Det var inte kungen som grundade LO eller strejkade för att få bättre arbetsvillkor. Det var inte kungen som hördes tala ut mot vietnamkriget. Det var inte kungen som uppfann dragkedjan eller grundade Chalmers. Det var inte ens kungens idé att starta Ostindiska kompaniet.

Pricis som de romantiska föreställningarna om Luciatågen, midsommarstängerna och svenska kyrkan som en vitfluffig mys-pysförening saknar alla dessa föreställnigar om kungen någon som helst verklighetsförankring.

Luciatågen och midsommarstänger har inte varit så homogena som idag förrän på 50-60talet då media bestämde sig för att utse några 'svenska traditioner'. Hälfen av 'traditionerna' kring dem är bara påhittade de närmaste decenierna.

Och svenska kyrkan har bara varit mys-pysklubben sedan den förlorade sin förmåga att skrämma befolkingenen och göra dem lydiga med rädsla inför helvetet.

Kungarnas historia är inte särskillt smickrande heller. Den exemplifierar inte det som svenskarna vill utstråla som svenskt i dagens läge. Karl XII som krigade och härjade i halva europa - stämmer inte jättebra överens med neutraliteten som råder idag. 'Därefter rätten och packen eder' skrev Gustav Adolf när han lätt förkunnas alla sina lagar från predikstolarna uti riket. Kungahuset har ända sedan hans dag varit en symbol för överhet som råder genom rädsla och terror.

Det nuvarande kungafamiljen är förresten inte arvtagare till något av det där eftersom de är fransmän som kom hitt för mindre än två hundra år sedan. Och fortfarande talar de inte alla svenska!

Jo min poäng är att lilla svensson har länge stått i demokratins tambur med mössan i handen och bett snällt att få några brödsmulor. Är det inte en kung som slår ner honom med käppen så är det partiledarna. Ställ dig i led lilla svensson och nöja dig med att vifta din röda flagga i majtåget så ordnar sig allting. Inte ska väl du lägga dig i hur landet sköts. Svensson går ut ur tamburen och viftar sin röda flagga och hojtar några slagord mot ett okänt fiende; ett vagt, gassiöst högerspöke som han aldrig träffat. Han är rädd för att göra annat - att sticka ut och bli sedd. Han vill inte störa illusionen om att sverige är ett utopi med folkdräktsklädda piggor och drängar som dansar kring majstången i en rusfylld eufori. Man vill så gärna kunna vara stolt över sitt land när man aldrig får lov att vara stolt över sig själv. Jag är ingen märkvärdig person men sverige - sverige är ju världsbäst.

Problemet med regeringsformen är att den aldig byggdes för att gemene man skulle ha en chans att bli delaktig. Vi har inte enmansvalkretsar. Man röstar bara på ett parti. Och om partiet råkar var för litet - mindre än 4% - har vi spottat i sjön. Du har sju alternativ - that's it. Vill du vara med själv och påverka måste du hålla dig väl med partiets överhet för det är egentligen de som bestämmer vem som blir vem när partiet får rösterna.

Det föreslogs i USA när vår grundlag författades att vi skulle ha - ungefär som EU idag har - en flermansexekutiv. Presidenten skullle bytas ut varje år eller så. Och motargumentet som vann till slut var det att folkets missnöje måste kunna fokuseras på en enda person ifall denne verkligen ska påverkas av missnöjet.

Jag tycker sverige behöver en stark exekutiv som inte bara har 4% eller 25% av folkets förtroende utan minst 51%. Hon ska kunna representera sverige utifrån de meriter som folket har erkänt. Och hon ska ha rätt att ställa partiledarna till svars genom ett veto. Hon ska vara folkets revansch mot de torra byrokratiska farbrödder i rökfyllda rum som idag fattar alla viktiga beslut i sverige.

Det skulle vara blott en början men det skulle vara kraftfullt. Nästa steget är enmansvalkretsar. Och näst efter det är att allt som bara kan bli folkomröstning bör bli det.

Lägg märket till att varje gång det blir folkomröstning blir det ingen som helst enhet inom partierna. EMU var ett förgyllt exempel. När folk verkligen har ett val och kan göra sig hörda passar inte svaren in i partisystemet. Tänk om vi hade en president som kunde uttrycka vårt NEJ när de fega partijyckarna lydde sin matte och röstade igeonm FRA-lagen! Tänk om en enda person kunde ha haft chansen att i folkets namn säga NEJ FÖR HELVETE NI FÅR INTE GÖRA SVERIGE TILL STOREBRORSTAT!

Men vi har kungen. Och han gör oss ingen nytta.

Swedish Band

2008-07-16T11:26:00.000-07:00

This is my new favorite Swedish Band

In this video the guy to the left of the singer is a former classmate of mine called Markus. The singer is his brother. And the bassist is another friend from high school, Martin. Don't I have cool friends!

Svea Rike

2008-07-08T12:36:00.000-07:00

(English below)

Jag är svensk. Medborgarskapsbeviset kom idag. Se bilden. Nu mera är jag bara en VGS: en Vanlig Gammal Svensson!

Vi drack låtsas skumpa för att fira. Jag häller nog upp det sista av min hallands fläder sedan. Svenska flaggan åkte fram. Allt som saknades var bag-in-box!

Först jag gjorde var att jag gick med i republikanska föreningen. Bort med monarkin. Jag vill inte representeras av någon som inte förtjänat det - i alla fall inte av någon som inte ens behöver övertala folk om att han eller hon har förtjänat det. Vidrigt. Medeltida jävla skitsystem som bara finns kvar för att folk är för lata och bekväma. Fy skäms!

I'm officially Swedish now. My papers came today. I was approved for Swedish citizenship on the 4th of July. Irony.

The first thing I did was join the Swedish Republican Society. Republican in the sense of abolishing the monarchy - and founding a republic. It's a pretty non-political organization. We need a system of government that reflects the humane and common-sense nature of Swedish society.

Gung-Ho Democracy

2008-07-05T02:12:00.000-07:00

Yesterday my boss congratulated me. We had sent out an invitation for an event to two thousand people, and twelve people had signed up within the first day. It was really good news.

I replied that since it was a colleague of mine who wrote the invitation and another colleague who sent it out I could do nothing but take all the credit. Mark one up for DeWitt. She knew I as joking.

Her reply was that everyone could take the credit as it was such a democratic endeavour. We all worked together and we got good results.

And then it struck me. The word ‘democratic’ struck me. In current American thinking democracy is usually a system where everyone is pulling in a different direction and by the hand of some prime mover (or whatever you happen to believe in) things move more or less in the right direction. If they don’t, at least no one was subjected to tyranny, and that’s more important.

This idea of democracy she was talking about is one where everyone works together. In that simple statement of ‘aren’t we all a great team’ she was taking for granted that democracy is first and foremost the collective movement for the common good and only secondarily a system where disagreements and opinions find their meeting place and compete for the upper hand.

For me that’s what the Obama 08 campaign is all about. It’s refocusing on the collective and responsible side of democracy; not to the exclusion of debate and argument, but debate and argument take second chair. Whoever wrote the slogan ‘yes we can’ is a genius.

The view of government we have seen the last eight years is one where the government is necessarily the enemy. It is an “us-versus-them” approach from the first. “Don’t let the government take my money”. “Don’t let the government decide things that are my prerogative”. It assumes that the government is someone other than we ourselves. But is this or is this not a democracy? If so than we should not start off with fear and suspicion. We should start by asking how we can help.

When the government is an agent of me and of my community I don’t object to paying taxes. And by the same token it would be irresponsible of me to be lured by the promise of more money by a government who is not committed to fulfilling its responsibilities to its citizens. If I vote for small-government politicians I have to own up to the fact that I chose for them not to save drowning people during Katrina. I have to own up to the fact that the money that could have gone towards healthcare for a dying child is now in my bank account because I am by definition the one with the power.

The Obama campaign has inspired America to talk about what needs to be done. We are firstly making a commitment to do it, and then we will discuss how. That’s the right order.

Gung-ho was coopted into the English language from Chinese. It means 'all together'. It was the favorite phrase of a general in the pacific theater of World War II. His men were gung-ho. They worked together.

I'm looking for a new gung-ho democracy.

Israel's new best friend - the one who tells the truth.

2008-04-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

If you don't hate Israel but can't stomach the way America supports Israel ... this is for you.

www.jstreet.org

J Street is a play on words in a number of ways. A slang term for lobbyists is 'K Street' since many lobbyists' offices are located on K Street in Washington DC. J not only implies 'jews' - there is also no J street in Washington DC.

Read more about J Street here.

On feeling sorry for one's self

2008-04-17T22:42:00.000-07:00

I was watching Judge Judy.

I know, I know, I know ... WHY was I watching Judge Judy!

Anyway, this particular day a woman was being sued because she had defrauded someone on E-bay. The customer thought he was buying a cell phone. He got a picture of a cell phone. It cost $300 or something like that. $300 for a picture - that was printed on an inkjet!

The crook - a mother of five - claims that she's off the hook because she wrote 'picture only' somewhere in the sales text. That was her disclaimer. Judge Judy wasn't having any of it.

I don't know what was going through that woman's mind (the trickster that is). But I'm going to guess; and if you think I have a lot of confidence in my guess, you're not wrong.

I imagine she was sitting in her trailer park with her five kids, and she was feeling very sorry for herself. She knows, like everyone knows, that there are some very rich comfortable people out there who have gotten rich by doing unethical and bad things which technically fall within the letter of the law. She sees all the commercials for prescription drugs, and thinks that they get off the hook by issuing a bunch of disclaimers. She sees on her kid's toys that the manufacturers disclaim any and all responsibility - even if the toy kills your kid. Disclaimers here, there everywhere, and little accountability.

"Enough!" she says, "Now I'm gettin' mine!" Her strategy was to sell a photo of a cell phone on E-bay and get away with it because of a disclaimer.

The only difference between here and a the white-color crooks is that she wasn't informed enough to know when a disclaimer does and does not get you off the hook. She probably hadn't read any law books. So she got caught.

The most amazing thing about it is how she stood there on national TV in front of a judge and honestly truly did not think she should be held accountable for what she did. She still believes that little disclaimer text should have gotten her off the hook.

I think it's the same whenever we stubbornly hold on to our wrongness. It's not that what we're doing isn't wrong, it's that we are insistent upon our right to be held to the same standard as everyone else. If that guy over there gets to do it, than gosh-darn-it so can I. Every time someone is butting their head up against a brick wall you can rest assured that a variant on this theme is at play. They have a legitimate claim underneath the surface, but they have chosen the wrong way of getting what is rightfully theirs.

It is a good lesson in the real nature of original sin. It's not that we are born guilty of someone else's sin. It's that we want love and justice. And we copy other people's actions in a misguided effort to get what is good. We mistakenly believe that other people have gotten true happiness by their misdeeds, and justify our own misdeeds since happiness is indeed our right.

Slow elevators

2008-04-14T23:04:00.000-07:00

According to the columnist in Metro this morning the new fad in the world is SLOWDOWN!!! Slowfood. Unplug the phone and wind down. Clear your calendar.

A group of people building an apartment building in Japan were discussing their particular form of slowdown. Lots of people didn't want to put in an elevator. It uses up electricity and it's better for people's health if they walk. The objection from the pro-elevatorists was that old people and handicapped people need an elevator (not to mention people moving in and out with all their furnature).

The compromise: a slow elevator! Too slow to be tempting for the people in a hurry, but still there when you need it. Fantastic!

Also according to an article in Metro, the number of people on sick-leave in Sweden is down enormously in compared with last year. Men's psychological illnesses are down 15.6%, women's stress-related psychosomatic illnesses are down by 19.7 % from last year. Amazing.

However, they attribute the change in large part to a change in doctors' attitudes. Whereas doctors previously have been quick to diagnose and give long or indefinite sick-leave orders, doctors are more careful to make sure you really are sick. This is because studies have found that sending people back to work within a relatively short period of time means they are less likely to stay on sick-leave for years and years. The point is to get better and not get used to being sick. They are trying to help people not get into a rut.

But the most shocking thing - and the writer didn't reflect on this at all - was the fact that women's neurotic, stress-related and psychosomatic illnesses are still around triple that of men. Depressed Swedish women outnumber men two-to-one.

Are doctors more likely to diagnose women, or do women really have it that bad? I think mostly they really have it that bad. Maybe they need some slowdown.

Logistics

2008-04-02T12:43:00.000-07:00

Did you know that ICA Maxi (a grocery store) sold 1200 cases of grapes in a single day! Just picture those cases, stacked in a single column. I think they're about 10 inches high, so let's just round it off at 1000 ft high. That's higher than the Eiffel Tower.

And we're just discussing a single product in a store with thousands of different products. Somehow in the midst of people coming and going, 1200 cases made their way into the store, to a very small part of the fruits and vegetables stand. They were emptied, the boxes were taken away and more grapes were brought out. If you had gone shopping that day you wouldn't have noticed a thing.

Well this is all a testament to the fact that running a grocery store is much more of a science and miracle of technology than I thought. Everything is planned from the time the grapes are harvested to the minute you walk out the door with your shopping bags. It's a well-oiled machine.

I am resisting the knee-jerk reaction to get preachy and righteous about this. I mean - how are you going to feed the 800,000 people living in Göteborg if you don't have systems in place like that. Are people going to start growing their own food? Sweden can't produce enough food to feed its inhabitants right now. There isn't enough land below the tundra line. Plus grapes don't grow here in any significant quantities.

I was thinking today about how my Grandfather's generation saw technology. He grew up fighting nature from day to day for a piece of bread and a roof to sleep under. He told me that he and his four brothers would get up in the morning, take the mattress off the bed that they all shared, and sweep all the creepy-crawlies off of it that had accumulated during the night. Millipedes, centipedes and a bunch of home-grown names from Oklahoma that I can't recall. They knew about living in the midst of nature and they had no romantic illusions about it.

And in their lifetime they struggled to turn outhouses into flushing toilets. To turn buckets of water into faucets and sinks. To turn washboards and basins into washing machines and dry cleaners. They saw our industrialized society as beautiful. They drove past a factory with ten chimneys spewing out black smoke and thought that tomorrow would be a better day.

Well, the fact that I am writing a blog on a computer that is connected to the Internet - the fact that you can read it - is very much the product of their world view. None of that would have happened if they had the same romantic view of living close to nature that you find circulating today. All I'm saying is that if society is going to rediscover it's relationship to the earth it's going to be a process more analogous to a wayward child going home and enduring the parents than two long-lost lovers finding each other's embrace. It's about the drunken wayward college student cutting his hair and getting a job - not about the big rock-candy mountain.

On not eating people

2008-03-31T12:40:00.001-07:00

The most important thing about fasting is not eating people. And I'm not talking about cannibalism. If fasting is not combined with prayer and alms-giving and community it is empty.

For those who missed it, the Orthodox Easter isn't until the 27th of April this year. So it's still Lent for us.

I was listening to an Orthodox radio show (yes, there is such a thing) and they were saying that materialism and gluttony serve as false surrogates for actual relationships with people. The more of a consumer you become the more distant you become from any community.

That is an amazingly spot-on thought. It sums up the deterioration of families and community in general at the same time as summing up western greediness and materialism.

I was even more blown away by hearing a reporter from Texas say - when talking to a Greek-Orthodox priest from Florida - that during Lent we need think extra carefully about how our choices of food affect the environment and the rest of the world. We need to think about it all the time, but he brought up how inhumane and evil the treatment of livestock is in the industrial-farming world. They also talked about how tortillas are expensive in Mexico and ...

Okay you need to hear it for yourself. So here it is. It's only a few minutes long. Also, if you're in the mood, go to www.myocn.net and have a look around.

Julia update!

2008-03-29T04:44:00.000-07:00

click on the picture to go to Julia's latest photo album!

Secularism again

2008-03-24T12:55:00.000-07:00

Irony of all ironies: the most concise and clear-minded statement on the separation of church and state I have heard in recent times was uttered by (Mormon) Mitt Romney. For those who don't know, he was one of the Republican candidates for President up until recently. He's also governor of Massachusetts.

He was asked, "What would you say to a Catholic bishop who threatened to refuse communion to anyone who voted for you?"

His answer (paraphrased): "I wouldn't say anything to that bishop. Who receives communion at what church has nothing to do with the government."

On secularism

2008-03-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

In Turkey they recently decided to allow women to wear head scarves on University campuses. In France they recently decided to ban them in all schools. It's an interesting study in secularism. Clearly Turkey's near fascist secularism, roughly a century old, was inspired somewhat by a very European (especially French) definition of what a religion is and where it belongs. It's not a definition arrived at by religious people, and even though I'm not Muslim and I think it's wrong to make women cover up I find it offensive and invasive that religion is stuffed in the closet so that no one has to see it.

I hear Christians in America (and in Sweden) complain about how unwelcome religion is in the public sphere. There is no prayer in school in the US. In the Swedish public schools they are starting to end the practice of going to church for the end-of-the-year assemblies. You don't have to swear on a bible in court any more and the ten commandments don't have a clear place on the steps of a state capitol.

I hear the complaints about this but I don't hear a lot of suggestions. What place should religion have in public life? If we were suddenly allowed to have prayer in school whose prayer would it be? If you invited a religious figure to the local high school graduation who would be invited? Would it be the Rev. Al Sharpton,? Would it be the openly gay bishop of the Episcopal communion,? Would it be a local Mormon Stake President or the pastor of the local Faith Assembly? Would it be an Imam?

I have coffee with any of the people named above. I don't have any problem sharing my community with any of them. But I don't want to pray with them. I don't know very many people who would be comfortable praying with all of the people named above either.

I read an article by a Russian bishop regarding the place of religion in public life (submitted to the EU if I remember correctly). He was basically saying that if the majority of people in a given country are all part of one religion that they have the right to give that religion a place of privilege and prominence in the state. They have to allow minorities the right to practice their own faiths, but the minorities have to respect the right of the majority to give their religion a special place.

It's easy to say that when you're in the majority. I know a lot of people in the US who are part of the majority religion - protestantism - who would say the same thing basically. But the minute Muslims are in the majority, or whoever, we who are not part of the majority become very secularly minded.

The question is: when does someone else's religion become invasive to me, and when should I not have to put up with it? Is it invasive for a non-Christian to have to see someone's cross on their necklace (these too are banned in French schools!)? Is it invasive to have to swear on the bible if you don't believe in it? Is it invasive to listen to a prayer when you can't say 'Amen'.

I don't mind seeing head scarves. I would absolutely refuse to swear an oath on the Koran, and I don't want my daughter to have to listen to a Pentecostal pray. I don't care if the ten commandments are taken down from the capitol because I don't need them to be there in order to follow them (maybe we should say that when all Christians follow the ten commandments, THEN they can put them out in public)

A bigger issue is how much and what kind of recognition the state should give to churches (or the equivalent). This is a problem for me because if a state can recognize they can also refuse to recognize. If a state can legitimate they can also ban. It's not a power I want the government to have.

Also when the state gives a special place to one or more religions it is seldom without a certain degree of quid-pro-quo. In Finland the state forced the Orthodox church always to celebrate Easter at the same time as the Catholic and Lutheran churches. The only other case I know of where that happened was in Saddam Husein's Iraq! It's not a stretch of imagination to think of a scenario where a Swedish Church's 'license' or 'permit' for granting marriage licenses would be withdrawn simply because they refused to marry homosexuals or non-Christians.

Forcing or coercing religious people from different persuasions to assimilate is disrespectful and intolerant. We are not all the same because we are religious. That's like saying that all minority peoples in the US are the same because they aren't white. We are diverse and very different from each other. We need good healthy boundaries in order to live in peace together.

I don't want a secularism that forces you to hide your religion. But I don't want a state that forces you to change your church services or your prayers. And if not having prayer in school or a bible in the court room is the price I have to pay in order not to have to hear a sermon by the local Jehovah's Witnesses at my daughter's graduation, then I'm only too glad to pay that price.

Parts 1-4 of a story of Communist torture in Romania and faith that overcame.

2008-03-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

Why children

2008-03-17T12:02:00.000-07:00

We were agreed about two things:

1. Having children for the sake of one's own fulfillment is the wrong reason to have children.
2. It is not a good idea to rush into a relationship for the sake of having children. It's very likely that such a relationship will fail, and that a child will be left in the breach.

What we couldn't put our finger on was why one would want to have children. There are a number of reasons but no one reason. We guessed that it's firstly biological. Charles Darwin and all the evolving apes are pushing us irresistibly towards the great delivery room of history.

There's also the fact that we don't feel complete without children.

So while we couldn't pin down a reason over lunch (we, in this case, was myself and a couple of colleagues), I thought I would give the matter some more consideration here (if you don't know why I would bother doing this, just scroll down the blog a bit).

1. Family life. It's not always a picnic, but most people know that they want it. There is something fundamental about having a group of people - you're people - to come home to and be needed by. This may sound like the view of babies that we denounced above (i.e. needing them for self-realization). But in that case we were thinking of people who wanted babies regardless of the context - specifically singles who choose artificial insemination rather than accept the fate of not giving birth to a baby of their own. There are healthy needs and unhealthy needs. Needing a place in a community - in a family - is healthy. Thinking you need a baby to be fulfilled is unhealthy.

The difference in outlook is as follows: family life rightly perceived and practiced has plenty of space for aunts and uncles who don't have their own children. Or first cousins. Or just friends and neighbors. There's nothing that says that single people can't be part of a family, and it doesn't need to entail moving in. God-mothers and god-fathers are a perfect example.

Also the wonder of family life is the calling to serve, not the possibility to be fulfilled or 'find yourself'. You will only ever find your self if you loose it first in service, and family life is full of opportunities.

2. Picking up on this last thought brings me to the second reason to have children: love. You will never affect a single person more than your child. If you are saddened by all the orphans and abandoned children across the globe, having a child is the opportunity to do something about it by bringing one person (or more) up in a home that has love and hope and peace. Maybe they can spread it around when they get older.

3. Choosing not to live the married-with-children life is also a very valid and honorable lifestyle. There are thousands of monks and nuns across the world who have chosen a life of prayer and service. There's also just being single. Your worth as a person does not lie in what you accomplish (including how accomplished a parent or spouse you might be) because at the end it all withers and the wind blows it off like a tumbling tumbleweed. And you'll be pushing up the daisies. Having children should never be another item to put in your CV. Because the only worth your CV will ever have at your final hour is to assist the person writing your obituary.

Your worth as a person lies in the image of God in you. You have succeeded because you exist. Rightly directing that energy of existence can take a number of forms and they are by no means all dependent upon being married. Or having children.

Class Action

2008-03-17T01:09:00.000-07:00

In junior high there was a list. You went through the lunch line to get your daily portion of slop. And at the cash register you either paid $1.30 for your lunch or, if you were on the list, you got lunch for free.

Then there was the 'Snack shop' where you could buy expensive ice cream cones and over-priced salads. But there was no list in the snack shop. There was only George. Washington. Dollar bill.

The poor kids couldn't hide. Everyone knew they got a free lunch. It's one thing to give them free food - the food wasn't of any quality anyways. But spare them the embarrassment of having to be seen to be poor; too much to ask. Give them an ice cream cone; forget it.

Why do we not see this as a problem in the U.S. Sweden would never stand for it. Lunches are free at school in Sweden. They're hot, they're served on real plates and you eat them with a real, stainless steel knife and fork. No Styrofoam, no sporks, no card-board troughs. And actually ... no snack shop. An added benefit - besides no one feeling like a beggar - is that kids eat less sugar and are not unsuspecting prey for gluttonous and evil marketers. Marketing by the way is not evil, but marketing to children is.

We will allow companies to come put vending machines in our schools, but we can't possibly imagine making poor children feel less conspicuous. Why is this not a valid consideration in the US?

I knew a kid in Junior High who was interested in a certain girl. I had her phone number. I gave him the number and told him to call her. But he wouldn't. "She'll never go out with me, I'm a scum and she's a prep.' That was his line of reasoning.

Who tole him that he was a scum? Who convinced him of it so irreparably that he accepted it as a fact of life? Surely all of that had to happen in his primary social environment - school. I don't think his dad sat him down one day and said, 'Son, we're scums and that's just the way it is.'

All of the hours on hours of brainwashing that are required to convince a person of their worthlessness had to have happened at school, and some very well-educated adults from the other side of the tracks (the teachers) had to have seen it happen and not done a thing (he got free lunches too by the way).

The whole community was complicit in this human tragedy and they sort of got their comeuppance later on because this particular person, last I heard, was in jail for check fraud. He had two kids he had to pay child support for, but was behind on a number of payments. He has certainly cost his community more than he will ever contribute. Maybe it would have been a worthwhile investment to create an environment in the schools that didn't turn a blind eye to class divisions. If not for him then for his children.

2008-03-12T22:00:00.000-07:00

Click here to go to Julia's latest photo album on facebook.

julia the filmstar

2008-03-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Moments in the life of ...

2008-03-11T13:10:00.000-07:00

On Monday afternoon there was a board meeting. Not my company. But the same office building. Two former students at the local university started a company based on some research they had done. Now it's a company. With a board.

Both the former students were there at the board meeting ... with their babies! The two students are both moms now, one with a six-month-old and one with a two-month-old. They are both off from work part-time (I think the one with a two-month-old is still off almost full-time). But there were two babies at the board meeting. That's fantastic.

Today at the swimming pool I overheard a father talking his little three-year-old into showering after their swim. He started explaining, "We have to shower and get dressed and go see Mommy...". The line of reasoning was pretty clear so far. But then he got an idea. And he ran with it. "...see, if we don't shower then we can't go see Mommy!"

Faced with the choice of showering or never again seeing Mommy, the three-year-old complied. It was brilliantly argued.

Remember how I was all excited about the magazine "Wired"? I'm still excited. I read the last article in the magazine today. Two guys who researched artificial intelligence - one in Chile and one in Boston - committed suicide in the same month with the same method. They spent their lives in search for the holy grail of a computer that can think like a human. They compiled databases and constructed neural networks. The one had delusions of grandeur and was bi-polar. The other was liked by everyone and had a very promising career. They were both obsessed.

I can understand why they were obsessed. I can understand why they gave up on life. Read Wired. It will make you think in positions you haven't tried before.

Att tycka synd

2008-03-11T02:29:00.000-07:00

Detta blir nog mitt första svenska inlägg. Och jag ska börja med att prata om hur synd det är när man tycker synd om folk.

Tycka synd om någon är helt förlamande. Det är att färdas fram till det faktum att något är fel och sedan nöja sig med att konstatera läget. Det är synd om honom.

Men för helvete! Hjälp honom då! Gör någonting!

Det är ett otillräckligt och odugligt synsätt om man bara nöjer sig med att tycka synd och sedan fara vidare. Men det är det som dagens samhälle betraktar som socialt engagemang. "Gamla tanter vanvårdas på äldreboende" står det i tidningen. Stackars lilla tant. Hon är så rar och gullig. Tänk, så synd!

Tycka synd i sådana fall är som ett alvedon. Den lindrar smärtan så länge, och man slipper bli påminnd om att det faktiskt är du och jag som bestämmer hur mycket pengar som investeras i äldrevården. Det är du och jag som bestämmer huruvida vi engagerar oss i våra föräldrars of farföräldrars dagliga liv. Jag lovar att vården blir bättre om släktingar dyker upp då och då och ställer krav. Om äldreboenden inte är undangömda tant- och gubblager dit bara undersköterskorna är tvungna att gå, då kan vi hålla vårdgivarna till svars från dag till dag och inte bara när uppdrag granskning bestämmer sig för att det är dags för alla att tycka synd en gång till.

Mer om detta famöver.

It catches on

2008-03-10T11:57:00.000-07:00

So Anna, (my wife if you didn't know), caught the blog-bug. It's called www.migageringen.blogspot.com. Have a look.

If you don't speak Swedish you will probably be asking yourself what 'migageringen' means. We'll have a multiple choice quiz to see who can think in 3D and guess the etymological connection.

Migageringen means:

a. A mosquito just bit me
b. My choking ring
c. No one owns me
d. Midnight
e. The meek require nothing

The answer tomorrow. If you guess right (by posting a comment) you get to choose a topic for me to write about.

The Scrolls

2008-03-08T13:20:00.000-08:00

I just finished completely re-working a website for the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. Have a look: www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com.

Julia taking a stand...

2008-03-08T08:42:00.001-08:00

A WE thought about US

2008-03-08T08:35:00.000-08:00

Recently I got an email from a friend with the following question:
I'm curious: you bash the US often (I agree with most of it),
yet have obviously chosen Sweden. But you talk like you're "us". Help
me on this.

I wrote back as follows:

I hope I'm not bashing the US. I'm still American (although this week I'm putting in an application for Swedish citizenship, but I'm going to have both). I hold 'us' to a high standard and I think that our country is falling short right now. I read a bit about American history and I think there are bits here and there where we can really feel proud of what our culture has been able to accomplish.

To be perfectly frank I'm also thinking a lot about the way protestantism has led astray America in general and me in particular (I hope it's possible to say that and still not mean that all protestants are on the wrong track - because that's not what I mean. I just think there needs to be a bit of self-examination).

Just to give you one example; it was a seemingly bible-minded and conservative protestant (evangelical) southern US that fought hard in the 50s and 60s to keep segregation in place. When they failed they turned inwards and shunned their neighbors as outsiders. Many people might have abandoned the racism a long time ago, but I sense a fundamentally suspicious and xenophobic strain in American evangelicalism (even in the 'northern' US which is where I encountered it) which I think has kept us(sic) from honestly engaging our neighbors on some important issues. I feel like there is an invisible dividing line in American society right now that means we are passing each other like ships in the night. The two Americas aren't talking to each other; they are maneuvering around each other. And it's sad.

So I find myself, having become Orthodox, sort of on the other side of the fence. But yet as Christians we all have so much more in common than we think. I'm trying to deal with that gap. I think my physical distance actually helps since I'm also an outsider. But I'm probably prone to making blanket judgments. I'm torn. It's hard to think critically and not be overly critical. I'll keep it in mind.

Umeå

2008-03-06T11:07:00.001-08:00

On Monday morning I flew up to Umeå. I was going up there ... at this point I feel required to explain to the unSwedish-in-spirit that Umeå is way up north on the East coast of Sweden ... to do a workshop with students at Umeå College of Design. I was teaching them how to use Craft Director Tools. Umeå Designhögskolan, as it's called in Swedish, is a rocking school. The tiny little class studying Design Visualization (five people) consisted of two Norwegians, one Colombian, one Argentinian and a guy from Korea. The school also teaches transportation design, product design and interaction design ... and I'm not sure what else.

On my way home, Tuesday evening, a magazine caught my eye at the bookshop-cum-café in the airport. Wired. That's the name of the magazine. What caught my eye was the title of an article about the secret archives of the Stasi. Click the link if you don't know who they were.

Wired gets five stars. No contest. It's good reading. It's a mixture of entertainment, philosophy and technology. There are articles about the internet and articles about extinct seven-foot-long insects. Where it is brainy it is all the more witty. Where it is cynical it is all the more thoughtful. I'm definitely buying the next issue.

As long as I'm dealing out stars I'll go ahead and rate everything on my trip.

www.Booking.com: five stars. This is where I always book my hotels.

Taxi Göteborg: four stars. Took me about one and a half minutes to order my taxi on an automated system. The car was here on time, waiting for me. They are very reliable. If you have never been in Sweden and have no intention of coming, and you still clicked on the link ... respect.

Malmö Aviation: Four-point-five stars. The grown-up reason is that my touch-screen check-in took about ten seconds. The not quite as grown-up reason is that after lunch (which was actually edible) we were given steamy towelettes to wash our hands and faces off. That was the cherry on the cake for me. If you ever need to fly domestically in Sweden, fly Malmö Aviation. They only lost a half a star because the one flight attendant was in a hurry - nearly threw the food package down in our laps. What was she hurrying to at 30 000 ft? Otherwise great.

Taxi Direkt in Umeå: five stars. Friendly drivers, much cheaper than Göteborg. Good deal. Speaking of clicking on random links. I just had a look at their site. They have the worlds most adorably clueless commercial ever on TV. They put the film on their site too - enjoy!

Umeå Designhögskolan: five stars. Goodness gracious what a cool school. We had a lot of fun.

Hotel Aveny in Umeå. four stars. Definitely the place to stay in Umeå. Really good price. Small room, but they furnished the room so intelligently that it didn't feel small. They had an umbrella hanging on the coat rack and a shoe horn - two things you never think to bring. It's the small things. The breakfast buffet was ok. The dinner prices were pricey. The pub they run called Pipes of Scotland was warm and inviting. The bar tender wasn't so inviting however and was visibly tired of being one of perhaps two or three staff at the time. I couldn't find website for them, but this is a picture of some random people who were there. It will have to suffice.

Umeå as a town: three stars. This is not a bad grade. I liked this town a lot. It's friendly and very approachable. It's small enough and at the same time big enough. But to be really honest there isn't that much to do once you've seen the big church in the center of town. Go there, to be sure, if you're in Sweden. Especially in the summer. But don't plan to stay there for two weeks unless long, quiet walks REALLY are your thing. Three or four days and you will feel like you have had 'logom' : Swedish for 'just enough but not too much'.

Göteborg Taxi (not to be confused with Taxi Göteborg, although that is unmistakably exactly what they want you to do). Negative-two stars. The taxi driver pounced on me in an area where he's not supposed to pick up customers, only drop them off. To be sure; my fault for accepting his pounce. He basically didn't want to wait in line with all the other taxis. Then he charged me fully 200 SEK ($30) more than Taxi Göteborg to drive me home. Now that's just bad. I'm never riding with them again.

Wired Magazine: five more stars. It's a good magazine, what can I say.

Jubulations for the CHORD

2008-02-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

Dateline ... AFTERNOON
So I have been lamenting the loss of a certain chord. The chord that I need to get pictures from my mobile phone (cell phone for Americans) over to the computer. And I found it. Joy Joy Joy

So now you can see what I've been up to for the past six months or so... For the slow in spirit I will explain that I have a camera in my cell phone and what I wanted to get from the phone was my pictures.

The first one is from the hospital a day or two after Julia was born. Cute!!

The next three are from Tijuana, Mexico where I spent a day in August. My company was in San Diego for a conference and we took a day out to see the sights and buy some tequila. I actually ended up buying Kahlua and Almendrado - an almond liquor based on tequila.

The most lasting impression from Mexico is the terrible terrible poverty. Only a few feet away from the US. It is a truly terrible thing to see how one group of people fences in another group of people.

Right when you get across the border you see large pharmacies that are run like ice cream stands - with salesmen in white robes (short-sleeves) trying to hustle you and pull you in.

The people are really really friendly - when they're not hustling you. I had coffee and talked to a waiter for a while about life and his wages etc. He makes next to nothing and has to work two jobs.

In the second picture you can see a large arch which is close to the border in a sort of piazza. It's visible on Google Earth. Tijuana - at least the part closest to the border - is so over-commercialized it seems to me that it can't possibly represent the real Mexico. Maybe next time I'll be able to go somewhere more genuinely Mexican. But I did enjoy the experience. I bought a rosary from an old lady standing outside the church there (it was Sunday). That's a very non-commercialized piece of Mexico that I treasure.

This next picture is of an eccentric car I saw parked near our house when I was out on a walk with Julia.

And the next one is from this fall.

And finally we get to the really fun stuff. This next picture is of an advertisement on a bus stop - I don't remember when it was. It's from a company that makes cakes and cookies etc. They decided to poke some fun at themselves and the sign says: Have you tried the "Cake Method"? (i.e. dieting method)

And the last picture of course if of Julia. That's all there is to say about that one.

Fear vs. Respect

2008-02-26T12:42:00.000-08:00

I heard that the U.S. Embassy sends out periodic e-mails with warnings and security notices from the Department of State. A lot of it seems by all accounts to be fear-mongering. "Change your daily routine so that no one can follow you." "Don't go into the city alone at night." "Don't talk loudly so as not to bring unwelcome attention to yourself." The sky is falling.

How dare the U.S. Dept. of State spread fear to people living in Sweden! That, if anything is state-sponsored terrorism! This is the safest country in the world for cripes sake!! You are much more likely to get murdered, robbed, run over by a drunk driver, shot, or left to die in a waiting room in the U.S. than here. Maybe the most honest warning to Americans abroad is that they shouldn't go home!

I suspect that U.S. government thinks that the many Muslims in Sweden are dangerous. I think the Muslims have a different story to tell. The local mosque has a metal detector and full time security guard. Churches ... one on every corner and most are open all day. They haven't seen a security guard since the reformation.

I have decided to put this issue to Tamie's Razor. It's like Ockham's Razor except I can't remember what that one was all about.

Tamie is my sister, by the way. She's one of the few people who reads this blog. She wrote on her blog about a methodical process for considering other people's point of view. It was a great idea - read more about it here: tamie's blog.

So here's Tamie's Razor:

-Why does this issue matter so much to you?
-Why does this issue matter so much to the other person?
-What are the underlying best reasons that s/he believes as s/he does?
-What concerns do you and the other person hold in common?
-What concerns does your position not take into account? Ie. what holes might your position have?

So the issue here is how the American government warns it's citizens and the rest of the world about terrorism. There are a lot of warnings. To be sure, there are a lot of dangers. I don't like the warnings because I find them to be intrusive and the degree and number of warnings seem to me to be counterintuitive.

So question number one: why does this matter so much to me?

I lived in Israel for seven years. I've been to the Gaza strip. I have driven a car where in front of me Palestinian boys were throwing stones and behind me Israeli soldiers were firing guns. I saw the Intifada first hand. I was in Jerusalem the day the first suicide bomb went off on a bus downtown. I was on a bus the next day. Nothing was going to stop me. Because terrorism is about making you and me afraid, and fearlessness is the one thing we can use to fight back. We have to refuse to be afraid.

Furthermore I think that warnings can serve two ulterior motives for a Republican government. Mongering fear causes voters to run into the arms of the politicians who seem best able to meet the threat. Also it gives the impression that they have learned their lesson, post-9-11, and now understand the world-situation. Neither is true. It's a circular argument and America understands the world LESS now than they did before 9-11 because of all the fear and isolation.

Question 2: why does this matter so much to the opposing side?
and
Question 3: What concerns do we hold in common?

I already mentioned the ulterior motives I think they have. But let's try to give them a break for a second. Clearly some people are concerned for our safety.

I watched a TV series on Winston Churchill recently. Leading up to WWII Winston Churchill was just an ordinary member of parliament. He was shouting and screaming - to his own party - that the Germans were going to be a threat and that Britain had to start re-arming. His own party told him that doing so would only provoke Hitler, and the best way to get Hitler to be nice was to appease him. So when the war did start the British were woefully ill-equipped.

So sometimes fear-mongers and doomsday prophets are right. At some point people like myself - people who would very much like to be pacifist - have to deal honestly with the price of pacifism. All the people who died in the German air raids on London; that was part of the price of pacifism. Maybe the bombers could have been shot down before they got there. Maybe the Germans wouldn't have dared. Maybe the young mothers wouldn't have had to bury their children and the husbands wouldn't have had to bury their wives. Real, tangible human suffering and loss is at stake, and it's no easy thing to say that we are not entitled to try to prevent it.

So I think we are all concerned that people should be safe and feel safe.

Question 4: What am I not taking into account?
Well obviously I am not privy to any of the intel that the U.S. Government has. They could have spies here and there following the terrorists around and sending messages back home. There is a big unknown that I can't disregard it completely. But I'll do my best :)

The fact still remains that this government that didn't know enough about Iraq to understand that they would need the Iraqi army and bureaucracy to run the country. A government that sends its spies to spy on domestic political discussion groups (see Michael More's film Fahrenheit 911) instead of, say, sending them to listen to what the rest of the world is saying about us, is not a government that seems at all capable of gathering good intelligence. But I'm not on the inside there.

I remember some of my favorite teachers in High School as the ones you would never dare mess with. It wouldn't even cross your mind because something told you right off the bat that this person would not tolerate disrespect. So it wasn't an issue. There was no testing of boundaries because it was so clear where the boundaries were. Those were my favorite teachers. Far from being afraid of them I felt safe. And respected. I wanted their respect.

What if the U.S. was like that? What if we were a country you didn't dare mess with? Are we such a country right now?

I think the only thing that keeps us from being such a country is the way we have treated other people . We have lost the moral high ground. We have given people the righteous anger needed to justify to themselves all kind of atrocities. Also, our negligence towards and neglect of our own people tells the rest of the world that we don't respect ourselves. And so it follows that no one wants our respect anymore.

Some people fear us, few respect us. We have to lead the way in choosing respect over fear, and then we might get the situation turned around. And so our security warnings have to reflect a level-headed, proportionate and ultimately respectful analysis of the situation. You are much safer in Sweden than in America by all accounts. Security warnings for Sudan and Syria, yes. In Sweden we should have Americans visiting schools and hospitals and parliament and taking notes.

American Civil War

2008-02-25T11:47:00.000-08:00

I got a bunch of DVDs for my birthday (if you missed my birthday it was Feb 9, but I accept gifts all year). One of the box-sets I got is on on the civil war. Not Iraq, but the US. So far I've gotten up to the second battle of Manasses.

Here's a fact that you might find interesting. At the start of the civil war, the most recent war that America had seen was with Mexico. At that time the muskets could only fire accurately for about one hundred yards. The most deadly canons could fire about four hundred yards. So the men would march up to a distance where they could hold the other line at bay - roughly one hundred yards - and bring up the canons behind them. The canons would then do the most killing. Finally the men from one side would charge the other side. Since the muskets took so long to load, the defending side would only get off one or two volleys before the hand-to-hand combat started.

This was all changed because at the start of the Civil War muskets were made to rifle (the bullet spins) and could be accurate up to five hundred yards. The problem was that the canons were still limited to four hundred yards. Whereas before the front line could protect the canons (and the horses that pulled them) the canons now could not be used to make a decisive blow to the enemy in the same way as before. Also the 'charge' took fifteen minutes instead of three which meant the enemy could shoot perhaps ten rounds instead of two or three. There was greater stalemate and more death.

In the war with Mexio 10 000 Americans died. Let's just assume that Mexico sufferend a few more than that (because they lost) - so let's say it was a total of 30 000 dead.

In the Civil War it was 600 000. That was the difference of the technology.

When I try to make sense of that war I can't. Some of the Northern soldiers were there to free slaves. Most weren't. Some of the Southerners were there to defend some righteous concept of freedom, most were there to make sure that no one messed with their slave-based economy. A lot of people had no choice once they started getting drafted. A lot of people never stopped to ask whether there was a better way.

I don't think there is a country on earth today that would agree for a province or a county to suddenly declare independence because they didn't like the rest of the country. There are actually a number of such instances currently - all break-off regions meet fierce opposition from the larger whole. There is good reason for this: you can't have rule of law if people are free to decide no longer to be under the law. People who are unwilling to cooperate and be governed by the larger community will always want to draw boundary lines so that they can do as they please. But it undermines the ability of any government to govern.

But on the other hand, how could either side of an sovereignty conflict possibly be worth all of that death and destruction? The people committing these genocides deliberately turn a blind eye to the magnitude of their crimes. At the same time we cannot turn a blind eye to what these things say about the magnitude of every-day greed and selfishness. It is not an extraordinary greed or selfishness that causes hundreds of thousands of men to kill each other - it is just extraordinary circumstances. Actually they were no more greedy or selfish than you or I.

The boa constrictor who eats a mouse could eat a dog. It probably will eat a dog. Meanwhile another boa constrictor happens to catch a zebra. It eats the zebra. This is not an extraordinary boa constrictor. It is not different at all from the one who ate a mouse. It just happened to catch the zebra napping. The moral of the story is that the boa constrictor who has eaten a mouse is no less dangerous than the one who is still digesting a zebra.

More bricks from less straw: American slavery continues

2008-02-22T13:14:00.000-08:00

The US economy is in time-out. It has been sent to the economic corner, sniffing crocodile tears and stamping its foot half-heartedly. It was naughty. Now it's suffering the consequences. Don't ask me to feel sorry for it.

I am sickened by the way my generation has been brain-washed into being an army of consumers (I have to say right off the bat that I am not excepted from any of these criticisms). They are zealots ... for their stomachs, for their e-bay auctions and their electronics. They are slaves who are paying their masters. Month after month the bill comes: payment on a Christmas present for the girlfriend. Payment on a credit card. Cell phone bill. Collection agency. Child-support.

The cheap cars they drive and the sordid films they watch and the super-sized coke that accompanies the Arbie's ham sandwich ... that's what they get out of the deal. In return they get to work menial jobs for slave-drivers. They get no health insurance and no time with their families. They get no community, no respect, no fulfillment and the membrane of denial that surrounds their misery is periodically pierced by a bill in the mail. The plastic address-window on the envelope from VISA reflects the light from the wide screen TV as they watch cable shows late at night, and reminds them of an obligation in the real world. So they push the envelope aside and change the channel.

This is the generation of the sub-prime loan. This is the generation that bought extra clothes at Penny's so that they could get some credit - not because they needed clothes. This is the generation that then put a sofa on lay-away because even the mass-produced furniture from Mexico is too expensive for them to pay for with cash.

This is the generation that has been indoctrinated from the days of Saturday-morning cartoons by hour after hour of commercials telling them that they can be happy if they just consume. Just buy. Just acquire. Mommy may have left them in front of the TV all day but everything will be okay if they can just get her to buy them cocoa puffs. And they believed it. They have been willing to work like slaves - suffer humiliation, die premature deaths from preventable diseases, and even go to jail for check fraud - they have been willing to do all of that if only the gaping hole in their lives can one day be filled by the ultimate purchase. They bought into the American juggernaut.

But finally a certain critical mass was attained and they couldn't bear the weight any longer. Finally they took out one loan too many. Finally they bought one too many burgers, and went to the movies one too many times. It was the french-fry that broke the camel's back. And they defaulted on their loans. They collapsed under the weight that their slave masters had piled on their backs.

My generation in America needs to hear two things. So far they have only heard one of them. First they need to be told that only God can fill the emptiness in their lives. That message is being shouted loud and clear all across America.

What they are not being told is that God cannot fill the emptiness in their lives until they stop trying to fill it with other things as well. This is what Christians in America need to be saying. To each other and to the rest of the world. God is not just another part of your consumer diet. My generation need to take responsibility for their lives and break the enslavement of the consumerist culture. God will give you new life ... by showing you how to live in self-denial and abstinence.

It's a funny word, "abstinence". Most people in the US associate it with campaigns to get teenagers not to have sex. Don't give teenagers condoms. Don't let them have abortions. Just tell them to practice abstinence.

How about if we teach them to practice abstinence at McDonalds first. Then at Walmart. Then at the bank.

Then we might be able to teach them to practice abstinence in bed. Not before that.

Groundhog's day

2008-02-21T12:03:00.000-08:00

I have no idea when groundhog's day is. I saw a comic strip the other day that had to do with a groundhog. He was looking for his shadow. Let's put it this way: that tradition didn't make it to Sweden so I'm out of the loop.

I was thinking of the movie Groundhog's Day - where the same day (guess which day) keeps repeating itself over and over and over for this one man until he 'gets it right'. It's Bill Murray too which makes it all the more worth seeing. He has to suffer through the same day at least five hundred times.

I heard a radio program with Thomas Sjödin (no, you haven't ever heard of him if you're not Swedish) where he talks about his childhood in the north of Sweden. The family would pile into the car and go driving on a Sunday evening. Just drive. Usually the same route, although at one point the route was amended to include the local hamburger joint. They had just introduced french fries (60's) and it was the latest thing. Mom brought a Tupperware container and they filled up with fries, took them home and had them for dinner.

Driving the same route over and over wasn't boring actually. It wasn't like groundhog's day. Thomas said that if you don't spend enough time in the same place you never notice any change. They could notice how the one person started building a new garage. Week after week and then one week the scaffolding was gone and the paint was drying. You never notice that if you don't visit the same place.

People are the same way but more so. Who we are is the product of the days and minutes of our lives; of the accumulation which necessarily involves change. When we share time together we can recount the journey. We know each other better.

I used to ask people pointed questions about why they belonged to liturgically-minded churches. Isn't it boring. Isn't it unimaginative? Isn't it stifling and non-conducive to creativity?

Actually it's like taking a drive every Sunday with the family and seeing the same thing over and over. The point is to be together. The point is for it to be familiar. For us to belong. The point is for us not to have the burden of producing and performing and coming up with something newer and funner. The point is rest.

Instituted Poetry

2008-02-19T11:20:00.000-08:00

I had lunch with my friend Daniel today. He described the Orthodox church as 'instituted poetry'. This was his way of contrasting Orthodoxy with post-enlightenment systematic theology.

I told him that another way of describing this other-worldliness is that Orthodoxy has a 'patristic mind'. It's a mindset where truth is only found in relationship, and meaning in life is defined in terms of being instead of doing. Where escape from the passions in life does not mean living without a passion - it means escaping from the un-sober constant search for 'fun' and entertainment. Giving up the hamster's wheel of consumerism and emotional dependency.

I once asked my godfather about asceticism; so many of the saints I read about do things like standing atop a pillar for years on end or wandering around in the desert. But I'm married with children. Is there an asceticism for me? Something I can DO!!

He told me to stop judging people. He was right. That is profoundly ascetic. It takes a lifetime to accomplish.

Perhaps Orthodoxy is an ascetic poetry. It's beautiful but not intoxicating.

The kontakion for Pentacost juxtaposes Pentacost with the tower of babel in the following way:

When the Most High came down and confused the tongues he divided the nations;
But when he distributed the tongues of fire he called all to unity.
Therefore with one voice we glorify the all-holy Spirit.

American police abuse man in wheelchair

2008-02-17T12:17:00.000-08:00

This is shocking!

A Sheriff's deputy dumped a man out of his wheelchair because she didn't believe he was paralyzed. She has been charged with a felony. If you follow the link above you will see CCTV footage of it.

What is really striking is the fact that about five or six of her colleagues saw this. They helped her search the man, pick him back up and put him in the wheelchair ... and didn't do anything. None of them confronted her. None of them acted as if she had done anything wrong.

Surely they should all be charged. They're police officers for crying out loud!

2008-02-17T11:33:00.000-08:00

Today was a particularly blessed Sunday. I took Julia to church with me - a bit of an adventure since all of the other times I've taken her to church, Anna has been there to help. This time I was on my own. But we did okay. Julia's godmother, Valentina, helped me out.

When we got home Julia was in good spirits the whole day. So this is a bit of her laughing at her mother. All it took to get this reaction was for Anna to put a stuffed animal on her head. That's it.

Finished!

2008-02-16T06:16:00.000-08:00

Ok ... so I have a long way to go until I'm finished learning how to paint icons!! I got a lot of help on this one. But here it is. If you are wondering what the text says it just says 'The Holy Juliana of Lazarevo (and) Murom'.

Even more progress

2008-02-14T08:14:00.001-08:00

Today several things happened. The vine pattern on her mantle is painted gold. And there are lots of highlights and details around the cloths - notice the fur coat under the red mantle.

Also I put a few more coats on the background and the halo which make them look a little more homogeneous and accentuate the color differences.

I had a lot of help when it came to the highlights on the clothes. But that's what i find is the most exciting part of the painting. Tomorrow is the last day but we'll see whether I'm finished or not.

If you are wondering where her prayer-band is - it will get painted on last. The little cross hanging down at the bottom of the picture is actually hanging at the end of the prayer-band (it's like a rosary).

Juliana Icon 2

2008-02-13T08:03:00.001-08:00

Today's progress.

Icons

2008-02-12T23:56:00.001-08:00

The Holy Juliana of Lazarevo and Murom: this is my daughter Julia's patron saint (matron?? I don't know).

This week I'm taking an iconography course from a local iconographer. The paints are kind of like watercolors - you blend pigment powders with egg-tempera (egg yoke, vinegar and water) and holy water (and for some colors alcohol). And you paint layer after layer after layer ... I'll be working on this one all week.

We started off by sketching the icon (from an original). We just drew the lines around the edges - nose, mouth etc. Then we transfered the drawing to tracing paper and then to the icon face itself. The icon is a wooden tablet that is treated and coated with ... I don't remember what it's coated with. It's white and chalky.

Then we (me and one other student doing her own icon) painted along the lines with Terrad Siena - it's the red-brown color you see on all the lines and also the coloring of part of her robe. She is holding a prayer-rope in her hand. It's kind of like a rosary, but we don't call it a rosary.

Stay tuned to this blog for progress reports!

For info on the Holy Juliana of Lazarevo an Murom go to: www.stjuliana.com

Obama

2008-02-10T12:20:00.000-08:00

The latest youtube clip that I watched on Obama's facebook profile was from Super Tuesday. It was a bit cheesy. If you ever move away from the US that is probably the first thing that strikes you - how corney and over-the-top everything is in the world of American media - whether it's the national anthem being sung at the high school basketball game or the president saying God Bless America when he is killing thousands of Iraqis. Anyway, on that continuum Barack Obama places closer to the national anthem which is innocent enough and well-intentioned enough that we can ignore some cheese.

Barack Obama is the only candidate today speaking clearly about how much people can accomplish if they will only suspend skepticism in big government for a moment. We don't have to settle for a government that can deliver nuclear bombs to any part of the world at a moment's notice but can't deliver blankets and food to black people in New Orleans. We don't have to settle for our schools - once the pride of the modern world - to be run like a multi-national corporation that is cutting costs. In segregated inner-city schools we are just taking the bread out of the mouths of the poor. It's just that simple. And in heart-land small towns of states like Indiana the public schools are a mixture of class background. In those places the children of the rich suffer along side the children of the poor when budget butchers bind and gag the angels of light who have dedicated their lives to our students. America is turning into a third world country and Barack Obama is leading a large movement of people who won't have it anymore.

If you want the Unites States to be led by someone who neither has blood on his hands from an unrighteous war nor gold lining his pockets from the slave masters of corporate America; if you want to be represented at home and abroad by a president who who is neither comfortably deaf to the cries of the poor nor greedily pursuing the halls of power - Barack Obama is the person you need to support. It's not enough to be a democrat in name when your past shows that you are just as morally repulsive and hard-hearted as all the other Washington politicians. America wake up and support someone who represents the people!

Julia giggles

2008-02-06T06:11:00.000-08:00

On possibilities

2008-02-04T07:42:00.000-08:00

It is charming to be offensive sometimes. Just a little. Just enough to clean the air of its pretense and unspoken assumptions. It's less charming to use big words when you don't really know what they mean. That is actually somewhat offensive.

There are words beyond my reach. Words that I don’t yet know of. Words that evoke a certain feeling or association. I have the associations just not the words. One day I will still not have the words. One day I will not because I know from experience that the time will come too soon when I don’t have time.

Too soon the spoon will need to be dried and the plate will need to be put away in the cupboard. Too soon the television will need to be turned off after I finish the phone call that came unexpectedly and interrupted, (hijacked) my evening. And the program that I was going to watch is already over. And the pad of paper is still empty. And the pen is still sitting untouched upon it in a manner reminiscent of an old friend whom you have neglected to call.

The friend carries on by himself doing what he does. However you can always discern a small disappointment and an empty space in his life where your visit would have been. Where your presence would have been. Small vacuous spaces in the air like reserved restaurant tables with no one sitting at them. That is where you would have been. But you weren’t.

When you do not choose there is still a choice. So I choose not to learn those words. My life would probably be richer if I did. But my daughter might not know me. And my wife might not be as impressed as I had hoped. And the spoon would still remain undried – needing its dish towel like a child needs her bedtime story. The blankets aren’t quite as soft and the pillow not quite as fluffy if they have not been reminded of the fantasy world of a child’s bedtime. That’s just the nature of things.

Forty-five minutes here and an hour there. I could keep myself busy from dusk till dusk with projects and other nonesenses I have dreamed up in moments off. Sometimes I imagine I could learn Chinese. Sometimes I want to play the stock market.

I don’t have time and I don’t have the power to accomplish. There is no accomplish; there is just flow. It’s like a river. There is no end. You just go from side to side as you are carried along between white-waters and lazy currents, and the percentage of your travel that you actually control is so small. And at the end there is just water. Tide and waves and the occasional lost tourist on his surfboard. There is no point.

Which is why I intend to paddle over to the fellow canoist (I don’t know if the person who rows a canoe is even called a canoist. It sound wrong, but canoer sounds even wronger). And there I will be. If you happen to come by you can share our space for a while.

One World Government

2008-01-25T12:46:00.000-08:00

Many many years ago in the newly carpeted basement of a friend I watched a video. I mention the carpet because it was the most striking feature in the room. Soft white carpet with black speckles and a smell that said 'new'. That's where I was.

The video was on One World Government. Apparently all the bad guys - Hillary, Bill, Bill Gates, Hollywood, Pro-lifer's etc. are all in on it. There is this conspiracy to start a One World Government where everyone will be turned into something between the characters in the Matrix and the children of Israel making more bricks with less straw. I don't know. All the money is apparently going to be the same around the whole world, there will be one small group of people that will make all decisions and the rest of us will keep on working and living hum-drum lives or perhaps be drafted into mega-armies to fight each other. Or else we will all become slaves. Or something. The consequences were a bit vague.

I don't know if it's clear by my irony that I don't have a lot of respect for this conspiracy theory. I think it's one in a long long long line of crack-pot terror alerts from a very paranoid and disturbed corner of conservative America. An earlier crack-pot terror alert from the same people was heard in the southern U.S. in the 60's and it said that integrating schools and allowing black people to vote was the beginning of an apocalyptic melting-pot of the races and a communist tribulation.

I only remembered this because I read something about Hillary Clinton recently that made a reference to the 'one world government'. I instantly remembered the carpet - what can I say? It was good carpet.

So let's just entertain the idea of a One World Government - i.e. one government for the whole world. There are many questions but I want to entertain two:

1. Why would anyone want a One World Government? Who stands to gain from it, and what do they stand to gain?

2. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

I don't think that very many politicians want a one-world government because then the chances of becoming powerful and famous diminish. It's in their interest for there to be as many different and competing jurisdictions as possible. Whenever the G8 gets together ... just think if all those smiling faces were replaced by one single 'great leader'. All the other poeple would be out of a job. I don't see them all going along with that.

Swedish politicians live off of the fact that more competent administrators can't be brought in from Latvia. Or Poland. Or wherever. You have to be Swedish to become Prime Minister. It's a very small pond and the fish look bigger. If they had to compete in English for the respect and attention of the world they wouldn't have a chance. I can't see a single party hack in Sweden wanting that. It is a universal principle.

The real winners would be people who don't have any power in the current system. I think that poor, third world countries would gain a lot from being able to influence, for example decisions about the use of natural resources. I think they would obviously benefit from a single world currency. Actually everyone would benefit from a single world currency - no more exchange rates.

And I think that borders are always barbaric. From the time when one cave man beat his chest and roared so as to scare the other cave man away from his territory until now at passport control it's still basically the same thing. "We can stop you from coming here therefore we have the right to stop you." A single world government could erase borders that divide people and foster misunderstanding and ignorance.

But you have to think soberly about the negative consequences. First of all there is always an inherent danger of gathering too much power in one place. It's bound to be abused. That is a real concern and countries like North Korea, Cuba, Lybia, Syria and now even Venezuela all tell us that it certainly is possible for monsters to seize power and wreak havoc.

And speaking of power being gathered into the hands of the few - what about mega corporations? Perhaps there already is a sort of a one-world government thing going on where men in suits gather in the board room and decide which country gets to starve this winter. Perhaps we're already there!

If we let all the Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Middle-Easterners and Indians all have their fair say we might not like what they say. My guess is that if everyone in the world had their fair say we would have a very very very beaurocratic government that ran much more of society than is to my personal liking. Laws and regulations and ordinances would abound and make life very difficult and nit-picky. My experience is that the less amount of time a society has been democratic the more they expect everything to be decided for them. I imagine that there would be a welfare state model that allowed for very limited free enterprise on a local level only. I imagine that people who can cooperate and play as a team would do well and people who like to do it themselves and blaze paths would be kept pretty silent.

When I envision something like the UN where the richest countries in the world didn't have magical vetos and opt-outs, I don't see a world I want to live in - to be honest. Let's just assume for a minute that all of my speculations aren't colored by uninformedness and prejudice (allthough they certainly are). Whose problem is it that I don't want to live in that world that is fair for everyone?

The most shocking thing about the One-World-Government dooms-dayists isn't that they don't want the world to have a single government. The most shocking thing is that they aren't ashamed about it. They aren't ashamed that their lifestyle is built upon denying other people decent lives.

The courageous person plunges boldly into righteousness precisely at the moment when he understands that it will cost him dearly.

On Church Leadership

2008-01-24T11:05:00.000-08:00

Rev. Torrence is a vicar in a northern English parish.

It's not the kind of parish you're thinking of. Frumpy old man in a tweed suit smoking a pipe and dreaming of the old days on the Cambridge cricket team. Old ladies who went to boarding school with Margaret Thatcher and Major Longstout who remembers the charge of the light brigade.

This is very much a parish that belongs in this century. And it's not a majority parish. It's Methodist, which is rather off of the beaten path anymore in England. A group of seekers who sometimes talk about God. Sometimes they just seek.

So basically Rev. Torrence got this request recently to help a church in his home town to pick a new pastor. This second pastor will focus on young people, students and seekers. Basically they want him to re-create his own group in another place. And he obliged.

There were wanted-adds. There were interviews. There were more interviews. There were discussions.

In the end, the very people who had asked him to help ended up completely overriding him and ignoring his advice. For Rev. Torrence this was a posse of cowboys headed straight for the edge of a canyon at a full gallop. The candidate who eventually got the job was ill suited. This person had problems both personal and professional.

I thought about this case because it's not actually unusual. It's not unusual to see church leadership that makes Enron look good. I have heard of unsympathetic bishops. I have heard of churches getting a fax telling them that they are no longer part of a denomination. I have heard of pastors getting fired by their friends who are on the church board because their sons did weed. Whole lives poured out as an offering to God and then discarded in manner that resembles balancing a checkbook or choosing a video for Friday night.

"No, thank you, I don't need to think this through one more time. I'm perfectly capable of making this decision. It's my prerogative."

That's the kind of refusal to engage with the evidence that you might expect at a video store. After all it's only a video. That's the kind of dismissiveness and rank-pulling you might expect from a parent telling a teenager why they can't have their own TV.

Why is it that church leadership is so infamous in this respect. I got fed up with a pastor one time and out of a mixture of morbid curiosity and self-pity I googled "spiritual abuse" (After wading knee deep through support-group websites for ex-Jehovah's witnesses and lapsed Mormons I felt like the guy in 'A beautiful mind' who sees secret communist codes in every newspaper). But what I'm really saying is ... there are a lot of cases and a lot of complaints. What's the deal?

I think first of all that there is very little competent leadership or clear-headedness in the world at all. Really. Very little. It's scary the number of businesses that are run badly. Businesses that could make double or triple the profit if someone just came in and changed a few different things. Most often the essential change would be to put the owner/manager on a cruise ship taking the long route to Australia. There are companies making a profit that could make more and companies that only survive on people not knowing or caring that there are alternatives.

If you have ever seen a business from the outside where you thought 'wow, they're different' - think again. If the boss doesn't wear a tie and the people all look like they are playing instead of working it's a sham. All people have a certain degree of prestige-issues. There is always an internal pecking order with unwritten rules about who is more important than whom and who is allowed to say what. We all have something to prove. We all have an area of our lives which is strictly out-of-bounds for criticism and rational thinking. We are all inflexible and irrational sometimes.

And the law of averages says that at least half of the people in any company (or organization or church...) will be in stupid-mode at any one time. It's a matter of managing the stupidity so it does the least harm and harnessing the brilliance so it does the most good. That's it.

So my first point is that bad church leadership is not at a higher percentile then any other leadership. Considering that Christians are so charitable to the weak it's actually surprising that we don't have more problems than we do.

But the second observation I want to make is that in a church context we are dealing with something infinitely personal. Will you go to heaven? Does God love you as a father? Are your sins forgiven? Can you ever get past your shame? Is there hope?

It's only reasonable to expect people who deal with these things on a daily basis to develop a defense mechanism. It's like the mortician who does the makeup on the corpses. He tries to make an old man look like Marlon Brando. It's just another face for him. But that old man also happens to be your grandpa.

What would a mortician do if he saw every person as a person? What if every day were filled with a hundred deaths? What if the judge understood and realized what five years of prison means? The horror. The humiliation. The intimidation. The torture of being locked in a cage like an animal. Who could ever survive as a judge if they actually thought rationally about what they were doing all the time?

Can you imagine if your daily life were a constant dialog on personal wholeness and righteousness? What if you spent at least eight hours a day talking about how to follow Jesus and how to be faithful in prayer and personal devotion? It's intense. Even when talking to others the priest feels the scrutiny of the faith he professes. God is a consuming fire and it's to be expected that people want to take time out now and then. Sometimes they just want to do and not think.

It's not an excuse actually. As Christians we are called to take up our cross daily. Die daily. There are no vacations. Every day we are called to put a strangle hold on our passions and sinful nature. Every day we are called to allow something very personal and uncontrollable decide our destinies. It's a high calling.

In leadership that means taking seriously the opinion of someone who disagrees with you when you could pull rank. It means not insisting on saving face and not always winning. It means admitting you are wrong. It means not confining your discussions and advice-seeking to a closed group of insiders who are likely to agree with you. It means taking risks and allowing people to participate.

I think you could raise the odds of having good church leadership if church leaders actively tried to learn from the secular world. Try at least to absorb some of the good ideas that people talk about, even though I've let you into the secret that so few people ever put any of them into practice.

The king doesn't often need to tell people that he is king. He's just the king. He doesn't need to pull rank because everyone knows who he is. But the beggar always has to fight the dogs for the scraps of food that fall from window of the king's kitchen. So consider, ye who pull rank and do not listen to wise counsel. Are you the king or the beggar or the dog. If you are the king then act like the king. But if you are the beggar be nice to the dog because he can keep you warm at night.

Why I've been gone for so long

2008-01-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

Ok here's the reason I haven't written anything for a while. First of all I have a little baby girl. If you have any questions after that statement, really, I can't help you.

The other reason is because I can't always think of things to write that I can say publicly. My colleague at work did this and my relative did that ... what if they read it. I'll get fired and disowned in the same day.

Also, many of the things that get you fire or disowned are not good things to say at all. Gossip. Judgements.

And about pronouncing opinions on political and philosophical matters ... I don't know. For every time I do it I feel more strongly that I shouldn't. It's probably because I'm afraid of someone getting angry.

In the real world there is no such thing as taking something back. You said it. That's it. You can contradict yourself or change your mind, but a statement cannot become unstated.

On Ranting and On alcohol.

2007-10-03T01:32:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I feel a little guilty every time I go on a rant on this blog. If you happen to have read one or two of the entries, you will see that they are all rants. I rant. That's it.

I guess the thing that might not come across is how seriously I DO NOT take myself. I'm one of those thinking-out-loud type of people. I like to voice ideas before they are finished and test them out. I like to think of my philosophy in life as a work in progress, and so far I've only begun to sketch.

But saying that, I have to rant a bit. I was in the liquer store here in Sweden the other day and I was hit by how misguided and unenlightened the Swedish (indeed also the American) approach to alcohol is. At 18 years of age you can theoretically become Prime Minister in Sweden. You can certainly run for parliament and there are 18-year-olds in parliament. You can sit in a Jury - which is a paid position in Sweden. You can die for your country. But you can't buy a bottle of wine until you're 20.

Either 18-year-olds are adults (not everyone thinks that they are) or they are not. You can't have sort-of-adults.

The problem is that Swedes are benevolent dictators towards themselves. They think of their society as the MOST advanced society ever. Their humanism says that they have evolved into the final utopia. Being such an enlightened and advanced society, they have so much wisdom and insight that they can take the liberty to make decisions on behalf of others. Like when and how much alcohol people should drink. The enlightened society has the right to decide that for you. That's also why there is such a huge tax on alcohol here. If it's more expensive you can't afford to drink so much. And statistics show that it works somewhat - people do drink less because of the laws.

In actual fact the society is not at all advanced - evidenced by the fact that if teenagers and young adults were given freer access to alcohol a large number of them would drink themselves to death. No laws or taxes can address that problem. The advanced enlightened society is actually falling apart at the seams. People in general and young people in particular feel little to no sense of belonging or purpose in life. They have no one to turn to and no group to hold on to.

But rather than dealing with that problem, the benevolent dictator that is Swedish society puts up not-entirely-insurmountable obstacles in the hope that the less determined alcoholics will give up. They strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.

No amount of statistics will change this. It doesn't matter that the laws can be said to have brought drinking down to this or that percentage over a seven year period bla bla bla. Suffering people who would have turned to one addiction are guaranteed to have turned to a different addiction and will inevitably cause themselves and others just as much suffering. It will just be in a different form. The problem hasn't gone away, it's just moved across the street from the bar - into the strip club.

Children's Entertainment in Church

2007-09-24T12:33:00.001-07:00

A friend and I started discussing different sunday schools we had seen. This was after a spontaneous rediscovery of sesame street and a comparisson between it and the Swedish equivalent. We realized that we knew a person who did sesame-street-like things for kids in a church on Sundays.

This gentleman does a whole sort of variety show with the kids in his church and it is very popular. He and a team of other adults make up characters to entertain the kids. They dress up in costumes, and maintain a continuity from week to week where the characters will develop over time. The characters have distinct personalities and each one has an individual topic they like to talk about. There is, for example, the inventor who tries to talk to God with a machine that he has invented. It's equipped with a bubbling beaker, a numerical read out and some dials and wires. Eventually he has to conclude that only prayer works for talking to God.

I feel torn about this kind of 'ministry'. On the one hand it's popular with the children and they love it. This particular team is exceptionally gifted at entertaining children. It's not something they should stop doing, for sure. But perhaps the forum is a bit off.

I got to thinking about the way children are approached in many churches: why is it that it bothers me so much?

First of all, we should never divide up our communal worship into family services, youth services, children's services etc. There is one service of worship, and it goes on eternally in heaven. And while there have been small variations in the expression of that worship in the church, there should never be large variations, certainly not within the same community.

When we go so far as to divide the church up into separate groups or separate communions, we are doing violence to the fundamental concept that the church's community is catholic - i.e. whole. The church is the place where everyone communies together. This is the place where we meet people who are different from us and commune with them. We can't do that if families with children come at 9, but old people don't come until 11, and the 'youth' have their own party at 6pm.

But the thing about children's entertainment in church that bothers me the most is the cognitive dissonance it creates. Our relationship with God is something that we adults take very seriously. It's something that is deeply personal to us. And yet we make it the subject of play and fun for children. I've heard sunday school leaders pray with the children and get them all to yell out at once a big, resounding, mirthful shriek of "Aaaaaaaaaaa-MEN!". But wait! Doesn't 'amen' mean 'truth'. Isn't it a confesion of a deep personal belief?

I know that many people will want to point out that Jesus said that we need to be child-like. But that had mainly to do with the uninhibitedness with which children approach their God; their unashamedness at being small and dependent. I don't think that being child-like in that sense means necessarily playing and laughing and toys (of course there is a time for that, but it doesn't have to be all the time). Children are capable of distinguishing play time from church.

It is more natural and child-like to approach God in a still and quiet spirit, than it is to approach Him with rattles, whistles and contortions of the Gospel into consumable packages. Perhaps the inventor really does need to leave his extraneous, concocted inventions behind and seek out a more modest and simple way of approaching God!

Prayer is something that people struggle with their whole lives. It is a discipline which is demanding and, again, deeply personal. It's a humbling meeting with God where you come back time after time in failure and force yourself to stand still before God and receive his grace. Prayer is a place of emptying out and coming to your wit's end. Prayer is a place of desperation - mnemon thanatou - Greek for 'remembering death'. It is the time to remember that at any minute we will meet our maker and we are tremendously unprepared. We have nothing to say to Him that can benefit us.

Prayer is not about feeling righteous. It's not about patting ourselves on the back. If you feel like you have done a good job, really made a contribution to the salvation of the world, if you feel proud of yourself at all then you have not been praying. Or if you have, it has been convoluted with no small amount of non-prayer.

So why encourage children to express their prayer as if they were cheering for a football team? Perhaps the protestant evangelical tradition is so fraught with emotional addiction that it remains blind to the mixed signals it sends to it's children. First the children are expected to perform the emotions of having fun (allthough let's not kid ourselves into thinking that sunday school is their favorite form of entertainment). They are taught a consumer approach to God which expects good music, good entertainment, good preaching and good donoughts. But at the same time we expect them to perform the emotions of being 'touched'. Although the two experiences do not naturally go hand in hand, they are forced like a square peg into a round hole.

Valiant efforts are made to entertain the kids. And then God is smuggled in somewhere near the end in an attempt to 'touch their lives'. The adults sneak the vitimins into the children's coolaid. Often times this attempt is so blatantly sappy that it's embarrassing for everyone.

It's hard to smuggle God into a forum that is primarily about entertainment. That's because worshiping God is not about entertainment. It's about self-denial and bearing a cross. Being a Christian is about not being a consumer. It's about being a servant. But that's not the message that gets sent to children when we make church an entertainment venue.

I'm forced to conclude that in-church children's entertainment has often more to do with the inadequacies of the adults than the well being of the children. Our relationship with God is a deeply personal matter and it's hard to talk about it to children. At least it's hard to do in an emotionally sober manner. Children peirce right through our layers of sensitivity and nuance and ask questions we don't want to answer. They don't pretend not to see the things we don't want them to see.

Personally I know that I am not up to the task of passing along my faith to my daughter. I hope that I will always have the courage to stand before Jesus in that desparation and pray. And I hope that if I strive earnestly then my longing and striving will be a small example for her. Most of all I have enlisted the prayers of all the saints whose prayer and shining examples are a surer help. The community of the saints is a powerful and healing community because it is a communion with God.

Children understand the difference between fun and serious. And they are capable of appreciating seriousness. They are designed to journey towards adulthood. They are naturally curious of, even jealous of the adults. I think that creating separate services for them deprives them of their birth right, i.e. their right to grow gradually into the communion of the saints as adults experience it. In the end that division is disobedient to the command to let them come to Jesus.

2007-08-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

Who is this guy?

2007-08-18T15:30:00.000-07:00

Surely anything I say about Islam will be useless because I'm a Christian. But this is a wise man. Why aren't there more?

The new wave

2007-08-04T10:26:00.000-07:00

It's a shame to let a good thing drain out into the sand. For the non-Swedes that metaphore will seem odd.

I read somewhere that people stop reading your blog if you don't write often enough. On the other hand the 'often' entries should not be too long lest people decline even to start reading for fear that they will be compelled to spend more time and attention than they originally intended.

Odd.

Who said that when you start reading something you have to finish it? Was it your third grade teacher or your mom? Tell mom that life is too short and you have places to go and people to do. A blog is like an all-you-can-eat buffet. No one is going to make you take more.

I'm writing from San Diego this morning. A group off colleagues and I got in late last night after a 30hr trip from Sweden. If you haven't done so recently, consult you globe to confirm just how far Sweden is from San Diego. After a all-you-can-eat buffet for breakfast (with disturbingly sub-standard sausages!! For shame!) I took a swim in the pool.

On my way here, I only got as far as Detroit (on a lay-over) before I suddenly got all 'american'.

Being American is a game. You need a relatively good supply of money to play, but it's just a game. All the friendly banter with strangers and friends, all the sports, TV shows and comsumerism. It's all a game. I don't know if we were playing the game first and the world of media-retail-service came along and assimilated to it. Or if it's the other way around. But we're all just children playing a game in make-believe land.

In make believe land everything is all about the next most amazing car or the most orgasmic food experience at 'Joe's Crab Shack. How is your customer experience going? If you're 28 your customer experience has been going on for about 20 years. I don't have statistics on it, but I would bet that the vast majority of fights between parents and adolescents has to do with how much the kids want to consume in the form of video games and pop-tarts.

For all you non-Americans, this is the insight you have been waiting for. It's here! This is that something about Americans that you always sensed but couldn't put your finger on.

In Sweden, it's hard to establish a relationship with your consumers. They don't bond with their baseball teams and snaple ice tea like Americans do. They don't consider it a matter of identity which pizza restaurant they prefer. There are some brands and consumer goods that people do get married to; cars, video games and computer brands. But it's not as ubiquitous. And it's not as personal.

In America you're never alone. A gazillian banks are always ready to become your new family, and don't get me started about hotels and restaurants. They will adopt you and walk you down the isle when you get married. As long as you can pay.

I guess what I'm saying is that in America we would all just rather pretend that we're being so nice to each other because we're nice and not because we are all involved in an intricate network of business transactions. Maybe somewhere in all of the 'have a nice day sir' and 'what can I help you with todayeeeee?' we actually are just nice for the sake of being nice. Sometimes. Maybe we just make friends easily and we're more relaxed. But mostly I think we just live inside the juggernaut which would like to forget how much is only about money.

I sat at the gate in Detroit, after my iniquitously over-piced chilly-cheese-dog, chips and beer, and watched headline news. Lou Dobs was talking about Obtuse Obama and was calling John McCain a flip-flop. He had a little pannel of three pundits (I looked up the word pundit and it actually comes from Hindi - means wise man or elder). The wise guys were talking about politics the way sports commentators talk during a baseball game. Have you ever noticed that for sports commentators there is absolutely nothing in the universe of any susbstance besides whatever presently occupies them in the world of sports. Nothing is going to disturb your consumer experience. A string of sound-bite pearls, poorly thought out comments that say as little as possible and over simplifications that barely resemble anything you could ever relate to - that's today's news talk in America.

That's okay when it's baseball but it's sad when they do that with politics. It's like buying concentrated coffee. The work, care and toil - not to mention expertice and precision - of so may people all boiled down into a little bottle that fits in your pocket. Just dilute with hot water and it's ready for consumption.

If Barak Obama were president and John McCain were vice president can you imagine what they would be able to accomplish? Or the other way around - doesn't matter. But already headline news is weeding out the people of substance. Yes, I realize that they belong to opposite parties, but other countries have coalition governments! And anyways the framers of our constitution originally had the runner-up for president as VP - i.e. the guy from the opposing party. That's what Washington had; his opponent as his VP. I think we should have stuck with that.

My own metamorphasis - suddenly becoming more American - expressed itself when I struck up semi-conversations with Jocelyn the waitress and another lady in the book store. It's a rare thing in Europe, that you just start talking to a stranger on the other side of a counter, like you are long-lost buddies from high school. But me and those two, it's like we went way-back. In the book store I bought a pack of playing cards with Barack Obama's face on them (if you missed it, there is a piece of delicous irony there; consumerism is a tool for political candidates here as well). And I asked the cashier if she was voting for Obama. I'm only in the states for a few days, I have to do what I can while I'm here.

Go look at www.barackobama.com and get informed. This guy is good news!

Why not?

2007-06-18T08:15:00.001-07:00

More photos of Julia

2007-06-08T12:28:00.001-07:00

Julia is doing well. She sends her thanks and best regards to everyone who has been sending her emails and cards and flowers. She has also been trying to catch up on her sleep.

She has uploaded a number of pictures to her dad's facebook site which you can get to by clicking here.
Or click here.

Julia Elsa Marie Fields

2007-06-05T10:17:00.001-07:00

Julia Elsa Marie Fields was born on Sunday at 11:05 pm. She is doing great. Anna is doing great. I'm doing great.

God has really blessed us with a problem-free delivery. Giving us support during the whole delivery were Karin, Anna's sister, and our good friend Matilda.

Most of all we are graterful for our beautiful little tiny daughter who is very sweet and alert.

The last picture is of Anna's parents, Grandpa Einar and Grandma Ylva.

Julias first video

2007-06-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

On Sunday evening at 11:05 pm our daughter Julia Elsa Marie was born! Both mother and child are doing very well. We have received a tidal wave of emails an text messages wishing us well and we are very very grateful to everyone who has supported us and prayed for us.

Design for poor people

2007-05-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

Most things that are design are made to solve the problems of the richest 10% of the world. Here are some links about a designer who is solving the problems of the other 90%.

New York Times article

Video

By the way - NY Times video reports are absolutely amazing! Highly to be recommended.

Taisia

2007-05-28T10:33:00.000-07:00

Taisia, the 80-somethingish Ukranian lady in the building next door, is loosing her sense of balance.

The sadness, however, has to compete with her unwavering hunger for life and love of people. Right now it's a tie.

The son who wants to move her into the local nursing home has yet to overcome. 'When I move out of my house,' she pronounces defiantly, 'I'll move to a prison instead of a nursing home! At least they know how to laugh and have a good time in jail.'

It's a parable, really - the saintly ones prefering the joy of community to the properness of society. This woman's home is a virtual central station of in-and-out for polish minimum-wagers and russian truckers. She is the last remaining samaritan from before the revolution.