So here are a few places where I would go first, to find money:

--The easiest and most obvious one is to change the tax structure.  Forget going after the top CEO salaries--yes, they're obscene, but if we reduced them all to zero, we wouldn't even begin to raise the sums we need.  We need to substantially raise the taxes of very wealthy people.  Obama is going there now, but I wish he could go further, and faster.

--Then I would let a whole lot of people out of prison--or never put them in there, in the first place.  There are surely violent, anti-social people who need to be locked up.  But there are too many people populating our prisons who could pay their debt to society in some other way than doing jail time.  Many might even conceivable be rehabilitated, if we actually tried to do that, which we don't.  The U.S. incarcerates people at nearly 5 times the world average, as Nicholas Kristof recently pointed out (NY Times, 8/20/09), And California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system, but spends only $8,000 on each child in the Oakland public school system.  What is wrong with this picture? 

--And third, there's the obesity factor.  Our kids (nevermind the adults who can't fit into airplane seats or into caskets) are getting to be real fatties, which is a major health issue.  And soft drinks are the biggest culprit of all, I'm given to understand.  So why are we selling soft drinks so cheaply?  We should add a fat tax on every soft drink sold and use all that money for health care.

In fact, if we made all these changes, we'd probably take care of the health care crisis and have enough money left over to solve global warming.  We wouldn't even have to stop spending billions of dollars on foreign wars--which, in truth, would be my very first choice of a smart cost-cutting measure.  But, hey, I'm trying not to dream too big. 

 Share this

I remember the first time I began to understand that our economic system could be questioned, that it was not just a given, but actually the product of human choice.  I was a social work student, back in the '70's, and I heard a speech by David Gil, a professor from Brandeis.  "Who owns the air?" he said.  "Who owns the water?"

A word about the ancient god of the free market system, Adam Smith.  When Smith is quoted regarding the "invisible hand" of the market, what is conveniently forgotten is his assumptions about the conditions necessary to make free markets work.  Smith assumed that we would operate on a small scale and so would know the character of the people we trade with.  He assumed that our financial dealings would exist in the context of our values.  Instead, Smith's writing is used to justify the mad pursuit of shareholder profit, which is held to be holy and untouchable.

If we consider ourselves religious or spiritual, we know that we must see and enter the suffering of the world, else our own spiritual wounds will never heal.  The question comes, though, how do we enter the suffering of the world?  Churches are most comfortable with deeds of charity alone.  I recall the words of Archbishop Camara of Brazil: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."  There's nothing wrong with giving soup to hungry people--but the more difficult and dangerous way is systemic change, to get at the system that causes the suffering.

Wendell Berry looked at the derivation of "economics" in his book Home Economics.  Originally the word meant "activity involved in caring for the home."  Now it is a sophisticated discipline, supposedly a science, grounded in mathematical equations instead of human values.

Do I, a minister, know enough to speak about economics?  Am I a citizen?  We cannot leave this crucial area to the "experts," who have overlooked the poor among us, saying "that's just the price we have to pay for prosperity"; who have called the bleeding of the earth an "externality"; who have been enamored of formulas in books and have not been concerned that children are hungry.  No, we can't leave economics to the experts, because economics is all about how we divvy up resources and therefore it is fundamentally a moral issue.

We wonder that we can do in the face of forces which seem immovable.  Well, these forces are in fact subject to change.  Human beings have made choices, and different choices can be made.  We can say no, and no, and no.  We can say no, until they hear us.  And we can say yes, here is a new way.  It's time now.  Let's move there together.

 Share this

Now most of the people who do not have cell phones (a mere 15% of the population) do so because they "are older" or "less educated" or "unable to afford phones."  These reasons are not mine.  (Well, I am "older," but not so old that I cannot punch buttons.)  So I am among the refuseniks--the 5% of the 15% (that would be, let me see my calculator) less than 1% of the population--exactly .75%!  I have never felt so lonely.  Others all around me--walking down the street, riding bicycles, waiting for prescriptions to be filled or movies to start, in church, in business meetings, on trains, in restaurants, during serious conversations about death or breaking up with your boyfriend, and of course in automobiles everywhere--all these others are chatting away to their friends and business acquaintances, while I walk through the world alone. 

And, yes, I have made this choice.  Why, you may say, why?

Because I want to be present in this world.  It's that simple.  I want to be with the people I'm with.  I want to see the fall leaves.  I want to notice the bicyclists when I drive (I worry so about them).  And another thing.  I am grossly offended--please note this, cell phone users--grossly offended when I am engaged with someone in what I consider a significant conversation, exchanging words carefully and respectfully, and that person interrupts our intercourse by answering a cell phone ring (often an offensive sound in its own right) and then begins another conversation in my presence.  And I am similarly offended when forced to hear one end of someone else's conversation, which may be intimate or loud or boring or all three.

There are reasons for people to own a cell phone.  I understand that.  Single moms who need to know where their teenagers are.  People who take emergency calls of one kind or another.  Women (or men) who drive alone at night on deserted roads in undependable cars. That's about it.  But wait!  What about business calls?  Business calls are not human emergencies. 

Someone asked me once, "What if a genie appeared to you and told you that you could make 3 inventions disappear from the earth--what would they be?"  Well, of course, you'd have to go for the weapons, wouldn't you--the intercontinental ballistic weapons systems, the land mines, the nuclear bombs of all kinds, etc., etc.  But given that the weapons were gone, I know what my next two would be: cars and cell phones.  The planet might survive.  And I could tell my friend about my . . . well, about my life, without being interrupted. 

 Share this

The sweat-lodge ceremony was part of a five-day "Spiritual Warrior" event. Participants were required to spend 36 hours in the desert without food or water, on a "vision quest," followed by a light breakfast and then the sweat-lodge ceremony.  According to one participant, Ted Schmidt, some people left and others wanted to leave, but Ray "was very intimidating" and discouraged people from leaving.  Ray told participants, "Play full on, you have to go through this barrier." 

Who is James Arthur Ray, anyway?  Based in Carlsbad, CA, Ray is a new-age guru with a company called James Ray International, which made $9.4 million in 2008 from various seminars, videos, and books.  Ray drew a lot of attention from his appearance in the popular film "The Secret," which focused on reaching goals, both personal and financial.  The Spiritual Warrior event cost participants $9,695.

Seemingly undaunted by the deaths in Sedona, Ray continued to provide spiritual leadership at events.  At a seminar in Denver this past Tuesday, he was interrupted by two men who shouted, "Tell them the truth!" and "You control poeple!  You stood in front of the door and refused to let people leave!"  Ray responded by saying, "I, too, want answers and am cooperating with authorities."  He then asked for a moment of silent prayer for those who had died.

That such an tragedy should have happened is reprehensible.  Ray is responsible for these deaths, and I feel certain that he will be charged with some variation or other of homicide.  But the larger question that remains with me is, why did so many people ever allow this travesty to occur?  To answer this question, we must explore the present state of the human psyche, and try to understand why so many people are rendered so vulnerable so much of the time. 

There is not space in this weekly reflection to go into the depth needed to properly explore the answer to my question, of course, but given such a restriction, I want to suggest some ways of thinking about this phenomenon that has occurred:

(1) People in contemporary time have lost their god, and they suffer from the fear and emptiness of that loss.  They have substituted bread and circuses, but have found these lacking, ultimately.

(2) Many people are desperately looking for answers to their emptiness and the lack of meaning in their lives, and they will follow almost anyone who promises to give them answers.  They fail to look for something as simple as credentials.

(3) People are social creatures who will "follow the crowd" in spite of the evidence of their own flesh to the contrary. (Contrary to Ray, vomiting and fainting are not signs of spiritual healing.)  And they will follow the authority figure.

(4) Many people believe that if you pay a lot of money for something, it will be worth a lot, failing to evaluate an experience for its intrinsic worth.  One of the first signs of corruption in a spiritual leader is the high price (money and sometimes sex, always strict obedience) they  require from their followers. 

(5) It is easier for people to project wisdom and goodness upon a leader than to find it within themselves. 

(6) It is easy for any spiritual leader who gains a following to begin to believe his own PR--and that is a spiritual dead-end.  It's fine to seek help from a spiritual leader, but try to recognize one when you see one.  They should manifest the qualities of humility, peace, compassion, and justice-seeking instead of self-seeking.  They should be reality-based, living on this good, green earth and not in some imagined realm someplace else.

This incident makes me so sad for all of us, for our longing to be whole, for our wish to give ourselves to something greater than ourselves, for our genuine need for rebirth.  Makes me feel like the Catcher in the Rye.

 Share this

I must say that the Catholic Church is surprisingly able to up the ante on my outrage, over and over again--and now this appalling statement.  Their saying that same-sex marriage is "one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture" makes me wonder how much the bishops are troubled by, say, the current development of global warming?  Or job loss and foreclosure, leading to homelessness and hunger?  Or the nuclear threat? 

At any rate, I was moved to write the following letter to the church leaders charged with the formal review of the document.  I invite you to join me, if you wish. 

TO:

Cardinal Francis George, President, USCCB, 3211 Fourth St., NE, Washington, DC20017

Archbishop Francis E. Kurtz, Chair, USCCB Sub-Committee on Marriage and Family, 3211 Fourth St., NE, Washington, DC20017

Dear Cardinal George:

In regard to your review of the pastoral letter on same-sex marriage, may I comment in light of my experience.  I am the Minister Emerita of a large Unitarian Universalist congregation in Portland, OR, where I served for 17 years.  We have long been an open congregation, welcoming same-sex couples.  The Acting Senior Minister (formerly the Associate Minister for 14 years) is an openly gay man.

I have united in Holy Union many gay and lesbian couples, and also married some couples, for the brief period in which marriage was legal in Oregon.  I can assure you that love does not differ, whether in traditional couples or same-sex couples.  Love is love, and it is holy, and given of God.  Marriage simply allows the couple to formalize what is already given of God and of their own hearts and further allows them to declare their love to the community and to draw that community around them, in mutual support.  This is a healthful and nurturing act, for all.

The times are changing.  At one time, good people--many of them church people--argued for slavery, saying that blacks "could not handle freedom," and that slavery "solved the unemployment problem."  One day history will look upon the gay marriage question in the same manner--and people will be incredulous at the arguments against it.  How will you and your church be judged then?

The best way to understand the love and commitment of same-sex couples is to get to know some of these couples, as I have done over the years.  Some that I married had been together for 15 or 20 years or longer, and many same-sex couples are raising children together in happy, healthy families.

Experience rather than dogma will show the truth--people change when they see the evidence of loving relationship in their lives and in the lives of others.  I suggest that you go closer, and see for yourself.

Know that many of us are praying that your heart will be moved to include all in the church family, equally and without question as to their sexual identity and way of loving.  All love is given of God, without exception.

Prayerfully written,

(Rev. Dr.) Marilyn Sewell

 Share this

It is true that Obama has been in office a scant 9 months, but he has not been given the Prize for what he has accomplished, so much as what he embodies.  With his election as our President, he became an iconic figure for the whole world, signifying a new day. 

--He says we need to work together in non-partisan ways to solve the enormous problems of our country.  (And he has tried to do so, in spite of no encouragement from the Republicans.)

--He says that everyone deserves to have health care.

--He says we should rid the world of nuclear weapons.

--He says it's way past time for Israel and Palestine to work for a concrete solution to their ages-old conflict.

--He says that the United States can and should lead the way in the reduction of carbon emissions, but that we cannot solve this problem alone..

--He is not naive about defense, but will always hold out the olive branch for peace.

But it is more than what he says--it is what he is, that won the Nobel Prize.  He listens, respectfully.  He changes his mind sometimes, when the facts merit it.  His wish is to compromise, some say to a fault, but he keeps the vision of the good ever before him.  He is humble.  His life has never been his own, to gain riches or fame--he is a servant of the people.  He understands that the United States is not the only country, but one country among many.  He respects his wife as his peer and true partner--which says everything about his attitude towards women.  And he is a person of color in a world long dominated by white people, but a world that is mostly populated by people of color.  His very presence as head of state of our country says to the world, "This is a new day.  No longer will we do business as usual."

So Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  What are the implications of his winning?  Undoubtedly, his voice will carry ever more authority when he speaks of peace.  His distractors--and they are many and they are shockingly effective--will have a tougher time convincing others that he is unworthy, for one reason or another.  His character will only become stronger as he grows into this new honor.

But Obama cannot bring peace to our world alone.  No one can.  What can each one of us do to make our world more peaceful?  I mean, personally, in addition to our political activities. 

I think peace has to be learned, like any other skill, and this skill is best learned by example.  It is learned first in the home.  Then in school and in the workplace.  It is learned in churches and universities and unions and non-profits.  What if wherever we have influence, we sought to bring caring and compassion to our words and actions?  What if we did not allow ourselves to be "hooked" by others' anger or frustration?  What if we assumed the best of people?  What if resentment was released and forgiveness practiced?  I'm not arguing for Casper Milquetoast--it's possible to be firm as well as kind.  

I have only one bumper sticker on my car--it's a small one, on the left side of the back bumper, and it says "Nonjudgment Day Is Near."  I'm trying to practice not judging--discernment, yes, but not judgment.  Just being present with what is.  I've begun noticing how much calmer I am when I can pull this off.  And how much more peaceful the world feels. 

 Share this

Who was he?  Was he the "master" of the household?  Was he one of the sons?  Was he one of the itinerant workers who passed through from time to time?  The surname the children were given was the name of the patriarch, but that was a common practice in those days, no matter who the father was. 

After freedom came, Melvinia stayed on an adjacent farm as a laborer.  One of her children was born four years after emancipation.  What does that fact suggest about the complexities of slavery and the difficulties of "freedom"?  Melvinia finally broke away when she was in her 30's or 40's, and was able to reunite with former slaves from her early childhood.  But so much remained unknown for Melvinia.  When she died in her 90's, her 1938 death certificate, signed by a relative, states "don't know" in the space where parents would be named. 

Melvinia's first child was Dolphus T. Shields, who made his way to Birmingham, Alabama, and became a prosperous businessman and the co-founder of two churches, both of which later were active in the Civil Rights movement.  Dolphus's carpentry shop was in the white section of town, a rarity for black businesses, and being of light color, he mixed easily with whites.  Dolphus died in 1950 at the age of 91.  On the very day that his obituary appeared on the front page of the Birmingham World, a black newspaper, the paper also ran a headline "U.S. Court Bans Segregation in Diners and Higher Education."  Things change.

Things do change.  This is the truth I want to always keep before me when I despair of my country and the lack of progress we seem to make on so many crucial issues.  Things change.  They don't change quickly or easily.  Things don't change automatically, or just because time passes. Things change because it is right that they should change, and good people throughout time provide the leadership for those changes.  Things change because people keep at it, keep working for years, often with little success, but keeping the vision before them always. 

Michelle Obama, whose ancesters were slaves, is in the White House.  When we would become discouraged in our labor, let us remember: things change.

 Share this

Not that men have been unnoticed by the industry in the past--no, through the years, men have been encouraged to use some of the very same products as women, to enhance their attractiveness.  First it was the wrist watch.  I'm not sure when men gave up their pocket watches for their Rolexes, but when they did, they were aping women's fashion, of course. 

The next thing was perfume--men started using scent in shaving products and then began just splashing on cologne.  Cosmetics for men are not as widely used or as widely accepted as cologne, but more and more men are stopping by cosmetic counters in department stores, not to buy products for their wives and sweethearts, but for themselves.  Plastic surgery, long the purview of wealthy women, has made amazing inroads onto the credit cards of middle-class women--and is increasingly popular among men. 

And then, purses are coming into vogue for men.  They are not called purses, of course--they are called "bags" or "satchels" or some other more gender-friendly term.  Recently in Italy, the home of fine leather, I reached for a lovely "bag," thinking that I might buy it for myself, until the clerk explained to me that it was for men.  It was smaller than most women's purses that are being shown now, most of which are just short of suitcases in size and weight, so it had an appeal for me.  But I decided against it--I wouldn't want to be caught with a "male bag."

I was looking through a clothing catalog last week and noticed that it featured horse-hair bracelets for men.  Men, if you're going to wear a bracelet, let it be made of some . . . animal matter.  This lets people know that although you want to pretty-up your hairy arm, you are identifying with our Native American tradition and are therefore seen as earthy and masculine and certainly no sissy.

Men, let me just say this about the Equmen undershirt: I wore girdles when I was 18 until I was 30, and I still have the broken veins in my legs to show for it.  Such garments constrain the flesh, and flesh is not meant to be constrained.  If you have too much flesh, or if it wobbles excessively, then you really must--and I know you don't want to hear this--you really must EXERCISE.  

Women have let advertisers tell us what we must do to be loved and wanted; and men, now they are trying to rope you in, as well.  Isn't it enough to try to sell you fast, gleaming cars and foaming glasses of beer?  Do they have to enter your toilet, as they have done that of women? 

Hear me now, men--just say no.  Say no before it's too late, and like your female counterparts, you too begin to believe that your value lies in your figure, your face, your . . .  hair.  Whoops, they've already got you there.

 Share this

Excuse me for saying so, but how is this thinking "new and provocative"?  These ideas have been around for over 30 years.  Our problem is not economic analysis: it is a combination of (1) human nature ("coveteousness" and "greed," speaking theologically); (2) an appalling lack of analysis and leadership in the academy; and (3) ignorance and lack of political will by elected leaders.

Just a short history of some alternative economic thinkers.  In 1972 the Club of Rome study was published, in which limits to growth was questioned.  The study considered the ecological impact of growth and the creation of wealth in relation to non-renewable resources.

In 1978, Hazel Henderson, economist and futurist, published a book entitled Creating Alternative Futures, in which she questions the value of judging human well-being with a measurement of Gross National Product.  Since that time, she has continued to write and speak, developing her theories, encouraging a paradigm shift in economic thinking, and encouraging socially responsible behavior by corporations. 

In 1989, economist Herman Daly and theologian John Cobb co-authored a book on economic theory entitled For the Common Good, challenging the assumptions and theoretical fallacies of contemporary economic scholarship.  They recommended a shift from an economics based on individual self-interest to what they called an "economics for community."  They said that current models address the acquisition of goods and services, but say nothing about relationships.  (These two dare to believe that the disciplines of economics and theology have anything in common.)  The book is 492 pages of dense but exhilarating reading (in the opinion of one who slugged through it).

I could mention others--Simon Kuznets, creator of the concept Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which could be used to replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of economic growth.  The idea is that, for example, just because someone gets cancer from chemical pollution, thus generating wealth for doctors and hospitals--well, that's not really a sign of human progress and well-being.  So we need to look at both the costs and the benefits of growth.  In current economic models, the costs are called "externalities" and are not considered.

There is the Canadian scientist David Suzuki, who has been speaking internationally for over 15 years about the ecological limits of growth.  He has warned that societies typically can sustain only about 1.5%-3% new growth per year, without overwhelming their ecosystems.

Our Nobel prize winners say that we should not focus on goods and services produced, but on the material well-being of typical people.  We should measure such things as availability of health care and education, their report concludes.  That such statements should be considered "innovative" is a sign of where our society is, in terms of human services. 

It is true, as the article states, that the problem of any new measurement of economic well-being is the "how to" factor--how do we do such measurement?  It's relatively easy to measure GDP, but how about GPI?  How do we measure, for example, the hours that a parent spends tending to a child's needs--for no pay at all?  How do we measure the depression and devaluation of self-worth that often comes with unemployment?

The fact is that it is the most important elements of human life that are the most difficult to measure.  (Try measuring love, for example.  Or honor.  Or peace.)  But the difficulty of mathematical measurement does not excuse ignoring the economic realities of our lives and pretending that we are only what we get and spend.  And certainly some of what goes unmeasured is amenable to simple accounting: what does it cost a city to clean up a polluted site, for example.

Progressive economic voices, most outside the mainstream, have been telling us for many, many years that what we're measuring is an inaccurate reflection of our well-being.  Instead of remaining steeped in the conventional wisdom of their discipline, and composing mathematically verfiable articles for one another, economists should get down on the earth with the rest of us and help us structure an economic theory that corresponds to our existential realties.  Stiglitz and Sen have given encouragement to their colleagues to do just that.  I hope they take up the challenge.

 Share this

I am getting married on October 6 and following the wedding will be going on a honeymoon for a couple of weeks.  I will begin writing weekly, once again, upon my return.  For those of you following me on Twitter, my Mini-Reflections will not appear again until Thursday, October 24.

Take care,

Marilyn

 Share this

Of course, liberals were greatful for the lengthy and effective leadership that Kennedy gave to progressive issues during his tenure as a Senator. But there are more subtle, elusive reasons, I think, that so many people--and not just die-hard liberals--were so deeply affected by Kennedy's death.

We never die alone, we always die in a context.  If this is true of the least of us, how much more this fact resonates with Ted Kennedy.  His death marked the end of an era.  We were reminded of the sacrifices of his amazing family--the oldest brother Joe, Jr., dying in the war, and the martyred brothers, John and Robert.  When an era passes in a kind of sad completeness, as it has just done, we are all reminded of the inevitable passing of time, of the sense that all good things must one day come to an end.

And then the swiftness and sureness of Ted Kennedy's death after his diagnosis seemed striking.  One looks at those of privilege and begins to believe that everything is possible with them--surely they are not subject to the same natural forces that we commoners must fear, no, they can call in the best doctors, get treatment at the best medical facilities.  And then we are reminded of the brothers lying dead, each falling to an assassin's bullet.  And Ted, helpless in the face of the recurrence of his brain tumor.  We know once again that they, too, are mortal, that nothing could have saved them, and certainly nothing can save us. 

Third, and perhaps most significant, Ted Kennedy was a man seriously flawed, but a man who redeemed himself in the end.  We read endlessly about his drinking problem, his weight problem, his womanizing problem--and we read always, always about Chappaquiddick.  He knew his imperfections better than anyone, and owned them.  He described the death he caused at Chappaquiddick as "unforgivable."  And yet he turned his life around.  With the help of his wife Vicki, he stabilized his home ground, and he focused his attention on the problems of the poor and the disenfrancished of this country, working tirelessly to improve their lives.  He was known throughout political circles as the best informed Senator--he wasn't given to empty polemic, but rather knew the facts surrounding any given issue, was informed about the specifics of the legislation. 

So the youngest son of this formidable family, overweight and rather passive as a child, who his parents thought would never amount to much, outlived them all, and made of his life, one step at a time, a gift to the nation, a voice for those who so often suffer in silence, and a lasting record of accomplishment.

Ted Kennedy's life and death says, then, to all of us--yes, we are mortal, we will die.  And yes, we are flawed, every one of us.  We hope not to be remembered for the worst thing we ever did.  We can get up and try again.  Redemption is possible.  It was for Ted Kennedy.  And it is for us.

 Share this

So when I called his office today and asked for Jeff, the secretary said in a rather tense voice, "Who is calling?"  I told her, and she transferred me to another extension that I assumed would be Jeff's.  But, no, another agent answered and when I inquired about Jeff, he said, "I don't know if you've heard that Jeff passed away."

I was shocked, since Jeff was middle-aged and seemed to be fine.  So I asked this agent--who turned out to be Jeff's friend and office mate--what had happened to Jeff.  "He had a number of health issues," the man said.  "And then he became depressed.  They put him on medication, but it seemed to make him worse.  So sad.  It was in the papers--you may have read about it.  He just disappeared last June 12, and nobody knew where he was.  They didn't find him until July 7."  I asked how Jeff killed himself, and his friend said, "They never told us." 

The ubiquitous "they":  "They" put him on medication.  "They" didn't find him . . . ."  "They" never told us.  Who did what?  What actually happened?  "They" will probably never say, and we will probably never know.  It's the way we all speak when we don't want to assign responsibility, or get too close. 

The agent that I talked with was concerned and sad that he had lost his friend and co-worker.  He couldn't understand how someone could become so despondent that he would want to kill himself.  He said that life is so precious to him that he could never imagine taking his own life.

It is difficult for people who have never been clinically depressed to understand how devastating that disease can be.  I've been there, and I know.  Depression makes you feel cut off from others, as though you're behind some kind of glass, and you can't break through.  You can't engage others, except in a mechanical, phony way, because you feel so dead inside.  You can't feel joy in simple things, like a lovely sunset or a piece of music that ordinarily might lift your spirits. 

In short, you are experiencing the singularly most painful feeling for human beings--acute emotional separation, from others, from your own emotions, from the usual pleasures and interests of this world.  Sometimes there are feelings of worthlessness and guilt.  And besides this, you have the sense that you will never get any better.  Your pain is so great that you feel you must escape it at all costs.  Even thoughts of the effect your suicide might have on family and friends may be discounted.

I have never tried to kill myself.  Fortunately, medication has worked for me when I've been depressed, and I've come out of it in several weeks or so.  In the great majority of cases, some medication or other will be effective.  But not in absolutely every case.

I lost a friend some years ago to chronic depression--a brilliant academic, she never could break the life-long cycle of depression, and she committed suicide.  When I went to my 50th high school reunion this last July, I was greeted by the hostess there in my home town of Homer, LA, who explained to me that of our class of 49, 13 were dead--two of suicide.  The next person I talked with was a man in another class who told me that his brother had killed himself years ago.  Welcome to the real world.  Suicide happens all too often. 

So I must end this writing by saying that if you know anyone who is depressed, encourage this person to get help--this is not something you can "tough out."  True depression is not the same thing as being situationally sad because something bad has happened--that kind of sadness is understandable and part of all human experience.  However, for those with a chemical imbalance in their brain, sometimes difficult experiences can lead to clinical depression.  If you know someone who ever speaks about wanting to end his life, take those statements seriously, in particular if they have a specific plan as to how to do it.

Depression is a disease, and it is too often a fatal one.  We need to understand it as such and do all we can to help those sufferers heal.

 Share this

The rally was organized by a group calling themselves Energy Citizens, a group which unsurprisingly enough is underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the main trade group of the oil industry.  Who else, I ask you, would have provided the bounty of hot dogs, hamburgers, and yellow T-shirts saying stuff like "Create American Jobs Don't Export Them."  Who else would have bused Energy Citizens to the rally, from their posts at oil companies, in order to protect the environment?  ("If we all drove in cars, it wouldn't look good," said James Hackett, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum, who attended the rally.)

The atmosphere was described by the Times writer as "buoyant."  A lunchtime party provided by the boss, off-site, could certainly be buoyant.  But do these happy workers have a clue as to what is at stake?  I expect they understand that they are being manipulated by the corporations, but do they know what is at stake?  Billions for the oil companies.  And for the rest of us, the planet.

Greenhouse gas legislation barely passed the House in June, and the Senate is expected to bring out its own version in September.  But will such legislation ever pass, even though the majority of Americans understand that it is crucial to move, and now, and this issue?

Last week Greenpeace discovered an oil industry in-house memo sent out by the API to its members (including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips), the oil industry is planning to increase pressure on Congress by sponsoring these public rallies.  "It's a political hit campaign," said Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace.

Apparently the oil industry folks feel that their industry has been unfairly treated--"pushed around" and "punished," said David Leland, a map maker for NFR Energy. 

Our scientists have been telling us for over 10 years now that if we don't make changes soon, we will soon move beyond the point where regeneration of the planet is possible.  And "soon" has recently changed by consensus to "now" by the most knowledgable scientists and climatologists in the world.

So let me just ask you oil industry folks--what is your life about, anyway?  Do you care about your children and grandchildren?  Do you care that millions might die from floods and droughts?  Do you know what kind of fire you're playing with, for your petty schemes to make a buck?  When you come to your last moments on this earth, how do you want to be remembered--as someone who worked to block greenhouse gas legislation and trashed the earth?  Because let me just tell you something: you will be accountable to those who follow.  They will know you for how you lived, what you valued, and how you used your power in the public sphere. 

What do you want to be remembered for?  It's a singular question that each of us needs to ask every day when we wake up--and then in so far as we are able, we need to live accordingly.

 Share this