Poison Ivy sucks!

Poison ivy sucks! There is no other message, no subtext,
no symbolism implied. Poison ivy sucks and I see no good
reason it should exist. But gnats and mosquitoes and Rob
Schneider movies exist too, and there is no good reason
for any of those things either. Poison ivy sucks!

Adopting the Poor

It's no secret that, among the myriad of reasons that can be
used to explain why poverty exists, one of the foremost is
the fact that a relatively small percentage of people in
the world control a disproportionate amount of the world's
wealth. (I am, unfortunately, not one of those privileged
few.) Now I am not interested, at least not in this particular
forum, in discussing why this is the case and what the
ramifications of this phenomenom may be. I reckon it has
ever been thus. For those in that privileged class, I would
just say, "Hey, remember Marie Antoinette?" But I digress.


No, I am proposing a way to tentatively reduce this
income disparity, at least in a modest sense. It is through
adoption. Those folks whose income exceeds a certain
threshold, say an annual income of $200,000, could be
given tax breaks or tax credits if they "adopt" an
underprivileged family for a time. The adoptive families
could also receive tax credits for the volunteer hours
they might spend helping said families. And, yes, I know
that churches and civic organizations sometimes "adopt"
certain marginalized groups or economically depressed
geographic areas as the loci of their humanitarian concern.
But my idea makes it more personal and more specific.


This is how I see it going down. The wealthy family,
let's call them the Smiths, adopts a poor family,
let's call them the Jones (Not terribly original
monikers, I admit. But I am tired and my imagination
is running on fumes. So sue me! If you come up with the
solution to end poverty, you can have this blog!) Anyhoo,
the Smiths agree to provide the Jones financial assistance
and other resources to help them become card-carrying
"productive members of society." This assistance would
continue until the Jones no longer need it.


Now this is NOT a "handout," but in the immortal
(?) words of Jesse Jackson, it is a hand up. The
Smiths, you see, would have gone through a rigorous
selection process conducted by a blue-ribbon panel of
leaders of the social service, religious, and health care
fields in the community in which the Jones reside.
And no, that is not a sarcastic way of saying their
names were picked out of a hat! For lack of a better
term, call them the "worthy" or "working" poor.
But because they have jumped through a series
of pretty rigorous hoops, they have earned the
right to be "adopted." These hoops might include
criminal background checks, occupational aptitude
tests, character references, and documentation of
the reasons regarding their need for assistance.

Now this is how the process would work. The Smiths
would not assist the Jones with anything they can
already do for themselves. They would only fill in the
gaps, by paying a past due utility bill, for example, or
by providing a "nest egg" to help the Jones build up
their savings and maybe a college fund for the children.
Perhaps the Smiths might lend them some money to
help the Jones start a small business.

Furthermore, the financial assistance would be on a
sliding scale. As the level of the Jones' income increases,
the amount of support provided by the Smiths would
decrease, with the goal that eventually the Jones' would
stand on their own feet and require no further assistance
from the Smiths, at least not of a monetary nature.

Furthermore, the Jones' would have a numberof
responsibilities in this scenario. For every two adults over
the age of eighteen in the family unit, at least one
would have to have a full-time job or be actively looking for
work or in training for a job. Until such time as they secure
employment, they would volunteer with charitable
organizations in the community or some type of community
helping agency. Habitat for Humanity has the right idea in
demanding "sweat equity" of their families. It promotes both
personal responsibility and a sense of pride. Documentation
would be kept for all of the above, e.g. copies of job applications,
school records, a log of calls made to potential employers, an
accounting of the hours per month spent in volunteer activities,
that sort of thing. If the Jones needed assistance in getting
from work or school, the Smiths could help arrange it.

The Smiths could also serve as informal mentors or "job
coaches." They could perhaps assist the Jones, if necessary,
with financial management, household budgeting, and the like.
There would also be a personal relationship. The two
families would be required to socialize in some fashion at least
once a quarter.


Hopefully, this relationship would be of benefit to both
families, as well as benefiting society as a whole. The Jones
would have a relationship with successful people who could
serve as role models and the Smiths would be exposed to
how "the other half lives" and would hopefully become more
sensitized to the needs of the poor. Now I know this sounds
like a private sector version of "welfare to work," but so what?
Poverty is a terrible thing and we must try anything that
has a chance of mitigating its terrible effects. And in any
event, often the private sector can do such things a lot
better than the government. But really we need both the
private and public sectors to address and take seriously
this terrible problem. Furthermore, I believe the
personal component of this program is its unique twist
and what might make it effective.

Yes, I know Jesus said the poor would always be with us,
but I don't think he was suggesting that as a reason for
inaction.

Good Violence?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for peace. I'm aboard the peace
train. I really identify with Bilbo's comments on the DVD intro
for "The Fellowship of the Ring" when he speaks of hobbits loving
quiet lives and good tilled earth and most of all peace! I can also
identify with their love of food and ale, but that's another story.
Never been much of a hand for pipeweed, however, but I digress.

The thing is, peace is not that simple. If peace only means an
absence of conflict, then count me out. To be in a small room
with people who hate each other so much they are not even
speaking and to say they are at peace because they are not
beating each other to death? Well, that doesn't sound like
peace to me. Peace is better defined by the Hebrew word
shalom, which is a very holistic term. One way to define
shalom is to say that it speaks of abundance, abundance for
all with heapin' helpins' of justice AND security thrown in
for good measure. There is no threat of being harmed by
the wicked in this version of peace. The lion lies down with
the lamb, and BOTH have adequate food, clothing, shelter,
and health insurance!

The realist in me suspects, however, that until that "great
gettin' up mornin' " when God makes everything o.k. again,
in this life sometimes the only way good people can live without
the threat of being harmed by the workers of evil is, as the
quotation goes, when rough men are willing to do violence on
their behalf.


No, I am not putting forward an argument for pre-emptive war!
Enough of that non-sense. Iraq was and continues to be a mistake,
a bloody, horrible mistake that has destabilized that part of the Near
East for decades to come, most likely. Saddam was really no "clear
and present danger" to the United States, even if he was a real terror
to his own people. Because of the policies of the current
administration, Iraq has lost almost a whole generation of its people.
On the other hand, we have managed to create a brand new crop
of terrorists. Terrific! Shameful doesn't cover it. But some people
never learn. Watch out for an "October surprise" with Iran.

Nevertheless, there are, it seems to me, good reasons at times
for rough men, or shall I say, rough PEOPLE, to do violence on
behalf of the innocent and oppressed. And the fact is, you don't
even have to think that hard about it: the Congo, Darfur,
Myanmar all come to mind. Regions with genocide and the loss
of innocent life on a massive scale. Civilians in the Congo have
been massacred and tortured due to greed over gold, gold that
causes wicked men with weapons to shed the blood of innocents,
gold that often finds its way into European and American hands.
Hundreds of thousands of people have died in recent years in
Darfur, Sudan, many of them Christians killed by the Janjaweed
militia. And many people are not aware of how the Karen people
of Burma/Myanmar have suffered at the hands of the
military regime. They have been systematically killed, raped,
tortured horribly, driven from their homes, forced into what is,
essentially, slavery. In such cases, especially Myanmar, I would
completely support armed intervention by the international
community. Myanmar, or Burma, in particular is an travesty.
The common people of Burma have been horribly oppresed by
the military regime for decades and then, after the recent
cyclone, the government won't even allow them to get the
assistance they need. Indeed, the military goons have even put
some of these suffering people to work at manual labor to clean
up from the disaster. They aren't even allowed to beg by the
side of the road. If any country ever needed a midnight visit
from the 82nd Airborne and the 75th Ranger Regiment,
it is Burma! However, it seems we are willing to rattle our
sabers if it is in our "national interest" but not when people are
suffering that we as a nation don't really give a damn about.

If you have seen "Hotel Rwanda," you know the relief that
was evident on the faces of the international guests when the
U.N. troops arrived to escort them from the nighmare Rwanda
had become, a country awash in its own genocide. And their relief
was due to the fact that those soldiers were ready and willing to do
violence on their behalf. That's why we are elated when Ironman
shows up to kill, yes, kill the terrorists, who are, well, terrorizing
the innocent residents of a Middle Eastern village. That's why we
are excited when Superman shows up in the nick of time to resuce
Lois Lane and every time we see Gandalf smite the Balrog's
ruin on the mountain side in "The Two Towers."

Violence of course must not be glorified and must be
used judiciously and can very easily be put to use in the service
of greed and power. It is, unfortunately, often our first resort
instead of our last resort in times of conflict. But that does not
mean that even the most peace-loving hobbit can ignore its
sometimes sad necessity. Give peace a chance? By all means.
But sometimes peace can only be achieved by the judicious use
of the righteous hammer of the wrath of God.

Observations

"There are some things that one can only observe." That's
one of my favorite sayings, if I do say so myself (yes, I made
it up). Take bumper stickers, for instance. I love the one that
goes "I fake it so my husband will buy me stuff!"
And then there is a "gimme that old time religion" bumper
sticker that has a pentagram on it. As Larry the Cable Guy says,
"Now that's funny right thar, I don't care what anybody says!"

But why do we put bumper stickers on our cars or wear
"message" t-shirts? Because we want to be noticed. We want
to say something about ourselves. We are telling the world
that we belong to the Masons or like pretty girls or that we are
Yankees fans or support Obama or whatever. We are
screaming for recognition, for someone to say, "I notice you.
I recognize you as a fellow human being. You matter."

Well, if we know that is what people need, why wait for them
to put on some t-shirt that say "I'm with stupid" or "Hottie"
or the like. Instead, look people in the eye. Smile at the next
person you meet. Hold the door for someone, even if their t-shirt
indicates they are gonna vote for the candidate that you are voting
against!

Pettiness

How much of our lives do we spend occupied by petty
concerns when there are far more pressing issues that
need our attention? On a cultural level, this is probably
best exemplified by our obsession with tabloid gossip about
celebrities. We find it much easier, I believe, to try to
understand the "problems" of Paris Hilton or Brittany
Spears than to try to deal with the much more serious
subjects of war, widespread global poverty and hunger,
our broken health care system, persistent issues of racism
and sexism, the fuel crisis, a faltering economy, and other
matters ad nauseam. For many of us, such issues, we feel,
are beyond our abilities to comprehend, much less to cope
with. So we mentally and emotionally retreat to much safer
ground.

If we discuss Brittany's issues with our friends at the coffee
shop and bar (and since she is apparently dealing with a real
mental illness, I do not wish to minimize the serious nature
of her problems), well, if we say the wrong thing, it really does
not hurt anyone, does it? We feel that the pressure is off; here's
a subject we can talk about and we don't have to be accountable
for what we say. Focusing on petty and peripheral issues is a
coping mechanism.



We even see this in churches, places where one would think
that people would be comfortable confronting more substantive
subjects. But that is not necessarily the case. I once spent
twenty minutes in a meeting with Baptist deacons talking about
where one could find those little rubber thingies for the legs of
folding chairs!

Come ON, people, we are better than this. People are dying
of preventable diseases. We may be on the verge of a potentially
reversable environmental catastrophe. There is NO good
reason that anyone should be driving a car that gets 20 mpg,
except for the fact that such may be what automakers and
oil companies prefer!

But we cannot solve these problems by piddling away our
precious time talking about celebrity gossip and other petty
concerns. That is a default strategy caused by fear and also
apathy. Now I am not suggesting that we must never again
buy a People magazine. But I am stating very emphatically
that we must focus on what is truly important. Pay attention,
people! Let's all get on Ritalin, if necessary, because our
attention deficit vis a vis society's ills could wind up being a
terminal disease.

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Dull"

I was really excited about the new "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom
of the Crystal Skull" movie. Well, kind of excited. For one, well, hey,
it's Spielberg and Lucas and Harrison Ford, right? And it has been
several years since the last one. But I had some doubts. It would
probably be predictable, right? There would be few surprises, right?
Nevertheless, I went in optimistic.

Unfortunately, my doubts were right on target. It was predictable
and there were few surprises. Indy rarely seemed to be truly scared,
even in very tight spots. It was nice to see the reunion with the Marion
Ravenwood character, but Karen Allen seemed to be going through the
motions, as did Harrison Ford. Nevertheless, it was, overall, a fun night
at the movies. It was kind of cool seeing the terrific Cate Blanchett in
an action role. And Ford was fairly believable as a sixty-something
action hero.

But when I sit down and dissect a movie, I always want to think about,
"what was it trying to accomplish?" And I am not sure that "Crystal Skull"
accomplishes much of anything except to suggest that sequels can make
a heckuva lot of money! And if the movie had a "point," and I know that
action movies do not necessarily require much in the way of either
"points" or plot, there did seem to be sort of a suggestion that too much
knowledge can be a dangerous thing; indeed, when (spoiler alert)
Ms. Blanchett's character receives an information overload from an
"interdimensional being," it turns her into a crispy critter. Now she
was seeking what a former seminary professor of mine called
"dominative knowledge" ; in asking this superbeing to tell her
everything that it knew, which one assumes was pretty much
everything that can be known, she wanted to use that knowledge to
dominate others. So one might say that she got what she deserved.

On the other hand, I am not sure that "too much knowledge is a
dangerous thing" is really a message we want to send in this perilous
age in which we find ourselves. We NEED, and indeed, must learn more
about each other, more about our diverse cultures and religious beliefs,
more about our planet and all the species with which we share it, not less.
We must not be afraid of knowledge.

Knowledge, if wielded properly, can help to create more understanding
and empathy among the peoples of this planet. Now I love to contemplate
mystery as much as the next person, but that contemplation has as its
foundation a realization of what I DO know AND what I don't know. One
has to know SOMETHING to realize that one does not know, and maybe
cannot know, everything.

At the end of "Crystal Skull," there also seemed to be an attempt to
highlight the dangers of greed and the evils of betrayal, but all that
seemed to be kind of thrown in as an afterthought along with the
happy ending and the credits. But maybe I am expecting too much
from what is, in essence, a Saturday afternoon serial. So go see the
latest "Indy." You'll have fun, at least at times. After all, a movie
does not have to make sense in order for one to enjoy it. However,
it does help.