What I Want for Christmas

Another Thanksgiving has come and gone and I am wondering for what people are thankful. I heard a story this morning about a woman who pepper-sprayed other shoppers at a Wal*Mart to get into the store quicker. Other stores report that shoppers were injured in stampedes to get in. Other stores have been open throughout the holiday while other waited until later in the evening to open, as if that were better. My brother told me a story today about a person who wrote an article comparing colleges jumping around in their divisions to get more money to stores opening on Thanksgiving and it all comes down to one thing: greed.

What we need is to return to good old-fashioned values. Please and thank you have gone by the wayside. Saying excuse me when you get in somebody's way is passe. People judge each other by the house in which they live and the car that they drive, not by their moral value. Hard work and perseverance are unimportant if the shortcut is easy but underhanded.

But the road is going to be long and tedious. It will require hard work and be filled with set-backs. The answers might come easily but executing them is going to be difficult and I worry if people are up to the task. The stakes are monumental but it is worth it if everyone tries. I challenge you to try to make the difference this year. Instead of buying a gift for someone, donate that money to a charity. Invite someone to your holiday table if you know they will be alone. Every time you shop, be sure to say please and thank you. Shop local. If everyone did something, we slowly might start getting this whole mess turned around. I am convinced that my actions will multiply and if my actions multiply, and your actions multiply, then we are starting to move in the right direction.

JoePa, Herman Cain and What is Morally Right

The past few days, the news has been filled with two disturbing stories. In one, a former assistant coach at Penn State has been accused of molesting young boys. Some of the abuse occurred in the locker room at Penn State and many have shouted for Coach Joe Paterno's head, which they have gotten, because he did not do more to stop the abuse. In the other story, Herman Cain has been accused of acting inappropriately with five women. Two were given settlements, the others never filed a claim. Mr. Cain has raised more money since these allegations have broken than before. In one story, a person is being vilified for not doing what is morally right. In the other, a person is being hailed for seemingly doing what was morally wrong. Why the difference? Because of who the victims are and whom the stories are about.

No one can stomach the idea of a minor being abused. For everyone, the idea of an innocent life shattered by abuse is beyond upsetting and creates feelings of anger and revenge. Questions like "Why wasn't more done?" and "How could people stand by and let this happen?" arise. Comments like "I would have done more!" start surfacing and before you know it, someone has to pay for this crime. Many times, the person who actually committed the crime pays, but sometimes others get caught in the web of scandal. This is the case with Penn State. Jerry Sandusky has been accused of sexually abusing young boys and will eventually be tried in court, but others who knew of the acts and covered it up are also being punished. Of course, the biggest name here is Joe Paterno, the winningest coach in all of college football. He was apprised of an act in the locker room in 2002, told his superiors, who said that they were aware of the situation and were handling it. Joe did nothing else apparently and has lost his job for it. The officials are on leave. Could Joe have done more? Even he says, in hindsight, he should have done more and I don't think anyone would disagree.

In the other story, Herman Cain has been accused of inappropriately touching women. Five have come forward. Two had made settlements and vowed to never speak of it. Three did not file complaints. One has described her encounter in detail, knowing that she was putting herself in a position to be talked about because of it. She described a meeting with her, her boyfriend and Mr. Cain, then going out to dinner with just Mr. Cain. She was seeking his help in getting a job. On the way back to her hotel, Mr. Cain put his hand up her skirt and pulled her head towards his lap. He was married at the time, and his wife is shocked, apparently, that anyone would accuse her husband of wrongdoing. In the time since Herman Cain has been accused of inappropriate actions with women, his campaign is receiving record amounts of money. He continually denies any allegations, yet will not take a lie detector test because he doesn't see what he has done wrong.

If we are going to judge Joe Paterno at the altar of what is morally right, we need to judge Herman Cain at the same altar. I do not deny that Americans are looking for leadership, as Mr. Cain says, but he needs to admit that we are also looking for people we can trust. What he allegedly has done is morally wrong and continuing to lie about it is just making the the wrong more wrong. If he has done nothing, he should stand before his accusers and let the truth come out. If Joe Paterno, in fulfilling a legal obligation, did not do enough, is Mr. Cain even fulfilling a legal obligation by not disclosing what really occurred or by continually attempting to downplay the situation? If Joe Paterno can get fired for legally fulfilling a obligation to report the abuse but fired because he did not fulfill his moral obligation, shouldn't Mr. Cain step down because he has fulfilled neither?

The differences here are striking. Mr. Paterno is a famous person and we expect more from them. We refuse to believe that they could be merely human with human failings. Once they have made a mistake, we can not just forgive them but we have to tear them off the pedestal that they did not ask to be placed on. Mr. Cain is not so famous and we expect much less from those who want to lead our country. Second, there is a difference between abuse of children and abuse of women. Everyone gets upset at children getting abused. The person who does such a thing should be tracked down and treated just as harshly. Those who cover it up are just as guilty. But a woman getting abused probably asked for it. She didn't say no or at least not forcefully enough. She shouldn't have worn that skirt or smiled so sweetly. In fact, unless the abuse is a heinous rape or overly physical, many men who take advantage of a woman are at the very least excused from their behavior and, at the most, made out to be more manly. Finally, the biggest difference I see is that Mr. Paterno is acting with grace and dignity. In all of his public statements, he has asked for prayers for the victims, he has thanked his supporters and he has shown support for those who have maligned him. Mr. Cain is blustery, with mixed statements and shows no remorse that anyone could even make such allegations. At the altar of what is morally right, Mr. Paterno is the leader he has always shown himself to be, although humbled and penitent, and Mr. Cain is proving he isn't a leader or someone we could trust.

We all know the commercial where a young gentleman walks all over the country asking "Can you hear me now?" into his cell phone. We are to believe that his cell carrier is covering the whole country and wherever we go, if we are using his cell carrier, we will always be covered. I am glad to know that some extensive coverage is available. My question is whether or not there is anything worth listening to?

I have read that during conversations, people are more likely to be thinking about their next comment than what the other person is saying. We all know how this feels. We all are guilty of it at one time or other. We have an important message to pass along and the intended recipient wants to tell us about how adorable their cat is. We don't really listen; we make a few non-committal noises and then pass along our message. Generally, we don't have any regrets, unless the cute cat story comes back later and we are pressed into recalling. Other times, we are on the receiving end. As we try to share conversation, we notice the blank stare, the distracted behavior, the clear signal that our message is falling on deaf ears. Then, as we process this information, we receive a message that must be more important than ours, since we are expected to listen and our listener clearly didn't. The exchange leaves us feeling slightly empty and belittled, but we move on.

I acknowledge that there are times when an urgent message needs to be relayed. But more often tha not, this behavior is an everyday behavior instead of an emergency behavior. But there is another way, one that leaves everyone feeling more fulfilled and better of htemselves and others. I propose that we slow down, take the time to listen to each other after having first rooted ourselves in a place of love and peace. The grounding of ourselves is very important. When we enter a conversation feeling good about ourselves, we are more able to make the person with whom we are talking feel good. We help them feel supported and important, allowing them to send the same feelings back to us. From a loving and supported place, we can begin an honest and loving dialougue. This is when true communication begins to take place. We hear not only the words that are said but we also feel the emotions behind the message.

This doesn't have to occur only in deep, long meaningful conversations. It can occur when you ask the checkout person at the grocery store. We can carry on conversations with people standing in line with us. We can communicate in this manner with our loved ones. When we start conversing in a more loving and meaningful way, it brings a fullness to our lives that is easily missed when we focus purely on passing our message along.

I challenge you today to slow down, center yourself and open a loving, supportive dialougue with someone in your life. To really challenge yourself, do this with someone of whom you often do not feel particularly fond. Notice how they react to you and your reaction to them. If all isn't happy violin-playing goats, don't give up. Chances are it was a better conversation then you have had before.

The Supreme Court Has Sold Out

I have been very quiet lately, not that I appreciate everything that is going on with our government, but I do get tired of ranting. I find it very difficult though to stay quiet as our Supreme Court hands down three decisions in the past two weeks that favor big business over working women, doctors and smaller drug companies. It is painfully evident to me that even the Supreme Court has been bought by companies who have only their best interests in mind. What I would like to know is when does this end?

In the first decision, the Court decided that women working for Wal*Mart, the evil empire personified in my opinion, can not sue over unfair labor practices as a class action because there is no evidence that Wal*Mart has a policy of paying their women less or not promoting them. Just because there is taped evidence of managers saying that they won't pay women the same, the records show that women are treated unfairly and lower courts have recognized their practices as such, the Supreme Court says all this is not enough. Now, the women can bring suit against individual stores, but their chances are slim of being successful. This opens the door for other class action suits to be dismissed and requires anyone considering a class action suit to make sure that the evidence is universal and overwhelming. Good luck.

The second and third decisions have to do with the pharmaceutical industry. The first says that the makers of generic drugs can not be sued for failing to warn people about potential risks as long as they have used the information from the name brand drug. In other words, if you use a generic prescription to keep costs down or in accordance with your health insurance and you have an adverse reaction because no one told you the reaction might occur, too bad. The second decision said that data miners have a right to obtain prescription writing information about doctors to sell to pharmaceutical companies so those companies can influence doctors to write prescriptions for their drugs. The potential with both of these decisions is that our health insurance will go up because the use of name brand prescriptions will go up, first because people want legal recourse if something bad should happen, second because the drug companies will be encouraging doctors to write name brand prescriptions. Good for the drug companies, bad for the rest of us.

Many people probably aren't too worried about these decisions. They don't work at Wal*Mart, still use generic prescriptions and the doctors in question are in Vermont. But I see a disturbing trend here. The Supreme Court, in favoring big business, is making it more difficult for the little people to get a fair deal. The Wal*Mart decision alone takes away the power from a group of people who have been wronged and given it to the large corporations. Our tax codes protect large corporations. Large corporations are now allowed to freely give money to candidates running for office, thanks to the Supreme Court. If the large corporations are allowed to have free rein in our land, who will look out for the rest of us?

Christina Shall Not Die in Vain!

Christina Taylor Green did not wake up on Saturday morning thinking that she would not live to see Sunday. Hardly anyone wakes up thinking that. She was a 9-year-old girl with the rest of her life in front of her and a day without school to enjoy. An act of violence ended that. Christina was one of the victims of Saturday's shooting outside of a Safeway in Tuscon, AZ. My heart breaks for her family as they struggle to come to terms with life from now on. But there is more to this story that upsets me and Christina's senseless death seems to be symbolic.

I have watched the political "debate" with growing concern. No longer do people listen and respond to rational arguments. More often than not, they shout their own opinion, louder and louder, until their three minute spot on the television is over. Discussion seems to live only on the PBS show, NewsHour. Many don't see an inherent problem with this type of "debate." But I do. There is a lack of respect for each other when people can not listen to the other person's opinion and respond civilly. People's desire to attack the individual and not the individual's ideas point to this lack of respect. We are not what we think. We are all humans with feelings and thoughts and a desire to love and be loved. What we think is formed from the lives that we lead. Our thoughts do not define who we are but rather reflect our backgrounds. There is no reason then to attack an individual for their thoughts. We only show our own ignorance and lack of respect when we do.

This lack of respect has lead to the shootings in Arizona. Many would suggest that he acted alone, that he was not influenced by recent political images showing cross-hairs on people who have voted in ways that go against others' beliefs. Perhaps he wasn't but, unless he lived in a cave, it is impossible to not be affected by the culture of hate and disrespect that pervades our society today. From slogans like "Don't Retreat, RELOAD," to violent video games that sanitize killing to movies that glorify bloodshed, we romanticize violence as a justifiable means to an end. Television talk shows invite vitriolic guests and encourage disrespectful discourse. Even common courtesies, such as "please," "thank you," holding the door for the person behind you or a gentleman removing his hat indoors are seen as quaint and archaic. In this atmosphere, even the most inept person would notice the general feelings of disdain for others and would be influenced by it.

That is why I see Christina's death is symbolic. She was born on September 11, 2001, the day when we came together as a nation against an attack from a people who showed us no respect. It is the day that it didn't matter if you were Republican, Democrat, straight, gay, black, white, Latino, Christian, or Jewish. You were American. Together, we stood as one pledging our unity against those who would do us harm. Christina was a baby of "hope", born on a tragic day to remind us that life goes on. She represented the best of America. She reminded us of the day we came together and why we continue to try to bring peace to the world. It was for Christina, and all children, that we continue to look for ways to overcome the deficit and cures for cancer. Christina encouraged us to find a way to stem the tide of drugs coming into the country and being used. Christina asked us to be the best we could be and do the best we could do because she, and her generation, needed us to succeed and needed us to show her how to become successful adults. Because of this, I believe her death is symbolic of how far we have sunk into the abyss, of how we have allowed disrespect and partisan politics to destroy what was once good. Although we condemn her death, we have allowed an atmosphere of incivility to fester and grow, thus making us accomplices in her death.

I hope that the violence in Tuscon, more specifically Christina's death, is a wake-up call to the rest of us that we are teetering on the rim of a pit from which there is no return. I hope that we start to denounce divisive ideals and realize that our reclamation comes from working together. I hope that we learn that words are as hurtful as sticks and stones and guns and start to choose our words and our actions with care, knowing they will damage us as badly as they will damage others. I hope Christina, and all she symbolizes, has not died in vain.