The Pope - Media Player or Servant of the Church?

Today, the Pope announced that he'll meet with more abuse victims. This comes on the same day that a letter signed by him is revealed to have stalled the defrocking of another child molester - Stephen Kiesle. In this letter, Ratzinger wrote that "the good of the universal church" needs to be considered before defrocking Kiesle. Seven years before this letter was written, Kiesle was arrested and pleaded no contest for tying up and molesting two boys. He wasn't defrocked for another two years after Ratzinger wrote this letter. Ratzinger's interpretation of "the good of the universal church" only seems to apply to the image of the church as an establishment...not its actual members.

In meeting with Abuse victims, is the Pope trying to save his image? Or is he really trying to nurture and care for his church? I want the latter to be true. I do. He's a very powerful person who can do a lot of good with the resources he has. However, he had decades to meet and pray with abuse victims, but never did so until the media started pointing out this exact problem - that he allowed a culture of half-tolerance for child abuse in the church, and worse, ignored its victims.

HRC - Chicken or Egg?

I had a conversation last night with a relatively new fundraising person at HRC who works on major donors. Andrew Sullivan's name came up, as we were talking about people who do/don't support the organization. This HRCer was annoyed that people like Andrew and me don't give HRC any money, but we complain that that the organization can't get anything done. I tried to explain to him that most people don't want to give money to an organization that they already know to be wasteful and ineffective. I suggested that he and HRC first prove to people like us that they are being fiscally conservative and making an impact, and then ask us for money. Basically, show us what you can do with a little, and we'll make sure there's more (it's how most investor-funded businesses are started, and it works) His reply (as I remember it) was "something has to come first, the chicken or the egg." Imagine approaching an investment firm and saying that.

The Pope is Not a Bad Guy - a personal conversation

You don't devote your life to Christ, and be elected by a bunch of other people who have devoted their life to christ, and still be a bad guy. I had a fascinating conversation with a close friend about this today. That friend was kind enough to let me publish our conversation - typos and all. Check it out:

Friend: okay chase you are pushing it!!! Lol I know the Pope scandal is a big deal but I think you are going over the top with the blatant Nazi references. it's like you're having fun with this

Me: well, the nazi reference wasn't mine...

Friend: I will not claim to know all there is to know about this, for sure, nor that the pope is not at fault.

Me: he was actually a memnber of the nazi party, and his personal preacher is trying to connect him with people who suffered under the nazi party

Friend: and did Ratzinger actually inflict any damage? wasn't he nazi youth? not okay, but not auschwitz

Friend: and I agree completely that comparing his suffering to the suffering of hte Jews is egregiously stupid

Me: I don't know if he killed or hurt anyone as a Nazi youth member. But he wore the uniform, and is, for better or worse, associated with the Nazi party. To try to claim a connection between media suffering and jews suffering in camps is ridiculous. I hope my tone doesn't sound like I'm having fun with it

Friend: oh sure

Me: I genuinely think the Pope is a bad person. I genuinely think he is a bad leader

Friend: okay well I disagree with you there, although I respect your right to feel that way remember that those were not the pope's words and I feel that while they were a poor choice of words on the priest's part, they seem to be blown out of proportion

Me: I genuinely think the Christ I got to know growing up would not want the Pope to be the leader of 8 billion Christians

Friend: what about the pope bothers you? I don't think he chose to be a member of the nazi youth. as for all of this scandal thing, I don't know enough about it to pass judgment

Me: no, it's not his nazi past that bothers me

Friend: but have you read any of his encyclicals? have you read his writings or anything good about him or just the bad stuff people are reporting?

Me: 1) he's out of touch with Catholics. Especially in regards to the sex abuse, he either deliberately or accidentally kept his head buried in the sand

Me: 2) he is staunchly homophobic. This doesn't effect me too much, except that his dogma empowers a lot of other people to keep people like me from coming out, from being honest, or from being a part of a church they want to be in

Friend: okay, that's the teachings of the church as a whole, not just the pope, so I think that issue is with Catholicism overall. not that it's okay, and yes he's a part of it, but any other pope would be the same at this point

Me: 3) He has repeatedly spoken against the use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS in Africa, saying that abstinence is the christian way to do it. Again, dogma is hurting real people, and hurting them in huge numbers

Friend: ah, yeah that's a sticky issue. again, not just him, but I know what you mean, he's the leader. Yeah I mean I’m not Catholic! and some of those are parts of the reasons why. I just am challening you, not because I"m mad, but because I want to have that discussion

Me: but this one is him specifically, because he has personally spoken publicly on the issue, and refused funding for safe sex campaigns in Africa that have been proven to work by non-christian organizations

Friend: ah I see

Me: i'm not mad either, and could never be mad at you!

Friend: :}

Me: but there are several tangible reasons why I don't like the Pope. it's not just a knee jerk reaction to the Catholic faith which he happens to lead. His own speeches and opinions are actually harmful to people

Friend: yeah I see. I know, it's hard for me because on the one hand I understand theologically why he feels certain ways. even if I don't agree, so I am not angry at him in the same way and I sort of understand the morally sticky situaton he is in, but I also agree with you taht there is bad crap coming out of it. yeah, I just think it's easy (not that you're doing this) but it's easy for a lot of people to just look at the press and turn him into a villain without taking a closer look at what he has done and that I get frustrated by

Me: I admit that I don't look at the good things he has done. a media problem anywhere, bad news is better news

Friend: right, and that's the case all the time, not just with this. here is an interesting article that my husband found and I want you to look at the stuff that's come directly from the pope

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html

you may not agree but it's an interesting poitn of view to consider. and one that I wasn't familiar with.

Friend: anywya thanks for discussing with me! :}

Me: reading the article now

Me: the writer seems to be saying, in the first half, that the victims should have gone to civil authorities. The fact is, they didn't. They went to the church and the church did nothing. One can't blame the victims for not going to civil authorities after religious authorities shunned them

I have trouble with religious leaders (clearly). On the one hand, how can the Pope be a bad guy? He's connected to Christ every day right?

Friend: it says the police and prosecurors ignored reports from victims, which implies that they DID go to civil authorieis

Me: my bad, it says that the church people should have gone to civil authorities

Me: so, my point would change - either way, the church did nothing. how can you turn your back to a crying child?

Me: I mean, the Pope should be a good guy right? He's devoted his life to teaching Christ's love (that was a big part of the speech he gave when he was first elected to the Papacy...connecting with Christ)

Friend: well, okay, the point of this article is to say that while everyone is blaming the pope, a lot of the blame should be placed on the diocesan authorities. I think he is not necessarily trying to address the idea of Benedict's guilt but is emphasizing the logical fallacies in the writer's piece (which, granted, may not necessarily relate to what you and I were discussing)

Me: so, I get frustrated when there is a lot of hatred, or passive ignoring of problems like HIV/AIDS, women's roles in the church, and child molesting priests

Friend: right but, the pope is an easy scapegoat

Me: he's in charge

Friend: and as the leader of the Catholic church, he can be connected to those things for sure

Me: he was literally in charge of addressing the child rape problems

before he was pope

Friend: I still feel like there is a lot of bureacracy there, it's not like things came directly to him. And again, I am not trying to argue his innocence, I am just saying that there are things that are issues with the church as a whole, or with diocesan problems that may not have been well dealt with that are getting translated into a criminialization of the pope

Me: I don't know how much he knew. But, if he didn't know what was going on, he wasn't effective in his position

Friend: okay, and that's a legitimate argument

Me: it wouldn't surprise me if we all find out that the people under him hid things from him to "protect" him

Friend: yes, me neither, which would be a problem, but not his fault

Me: unless he knew people were hiding it and accepted it

Friend: I just basically take issue with a lot of reporters that seem out to demonize him

the Catholic church gets hated on a lot and I understand the reasoning behind some of it

Me: frankly, they are the source of a LOT of hate.

Friend: a lot of churches are sources of a lot of hate, fundamentalist churches are oftn just as bad. not that that makes it okay!! But…

Me: yes, not just Catholics

Friend: and I truly believe that the pope, and the good catholics out there, are doing their best to work towards a loving and Christlike world and some of their tactics are not Christlike

Me: to your point, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I shouldn't be hating on the church so much....why spread more hatred?

Friend: which is not okay, but perhaps true! although Id o think it is legitimate to challenge things that are hurtful or bad, but I do think that we tend to spend a lot of time looking at the things that divide us and don't necessarily make the effort to find the good, or the commonalities

it isi a lot harder especially when the bad stuff can be so hurtful

Me: I definitely fall into that category. of course, it's also easy for people in the US to villainize the Pope because we don't have a personal connection with him

Friend: I think we all do. but anyway. here's hoping the Vatican, and we, can move forward in a good and loving direction towards justice and a future free of this kind of awfulness

Me: maybe the media has ignored him saying this, but what a statement it would be if he got up and said, "Children of Christ, I am sorry for your pain that any Church official has caused you. Abuse is unacceptable and I want to promise you that we are forcefully ridding our Church family of this problem." again, I probably don't hear the good stuff like that he says trying to actually read some of his recent letters/speeches now

Friend: yeah, I know he made a speech about it when he came to the US

Me: he's the first pope to ever meet with sex abuse victims, that's a huge wall to break down

Friend: I wish I could find the text of his speech, I just found this, which is Catholic News Service: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802072.htm

not exactly unbiased, but a start

Me: here's that speech: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_bishops-usa_en.html

Friend: good find

Friend: okay, so it's about two paragraphs of the whole thing. they're good of course, the question is, is it enough? but it's something

Me: so, in this speech, as well as in his recent letter to the Irish Bishops, he constantly says (paraphrase) "YOU need to have better relationships with your diocese...etc."

Friend: yeah, he's not talking about it as his job, but his job to shepherd them in doing it right

Me: it was especially noticeable in his letter to the Irish: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Friend: I don't think at this point that he's trying to pass it off

Me: he's trying to get them to do the right thing I think

Friend: yes

Me: but it seems like he's trying to do it without taking responsibility for leading them into doing it it seems he's saying "you should do this" instead of "I am going to make sure this doesn't happen anymore"

Friend: yeah, again, I'm not sure whether that is passing it off, or legitimately acknowledging that it's their job. i think some of that has to do with hierarchy and bureacracy

Me: maybe i'm too in love with Obama, who has made every problem a personal goal of his to change, lol

Friend: hahah I know. but I see whta you mean, too. we want to hear him make it more of a personal goal for him, himself. very interesting

I actually have to go now

The Pope is the Victim?

'Ratzinger's personal preacher likened accusations against the pope and the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.' - you know...the same violence that Ratzinger inflicted as a member of the Nazi party. How shameful for the Pope or anyone around him to play the victim and try to identify with victims that actually suffered under his hand as a member of the Nazi party.

Any person with half a Christian heart knows that the victims are the children who suffered. If the Pope and his cronies would grow a pair and take charge of the problem, they might earn back some respect. But so far, what a disgraceful group of people over in Rome.

Why is he the Pope?

Either the Pope lied and covered up sex abuse, or he failed in his job to rid the church of sex Abuse - a task for which he was specifically brought to Rome by JPII. The church claims that Ratzinger knew nothing about the alleged abuse reports when he Headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which begs the question - if he was not aware of the most critical issue facing his Church in centuries, an issue he was specifically tasked to resolve, why is he the Pope?

UPDATE: HuffPost highlights housing story as #1 story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

HuffPost Guilty of Negative Journalism When it Comes to Housing

All week, the Huffington Post has been showcasing articles about the Administration's failure to provide loan modification programs for underwater borrowers. These articles have appeared at or near the top of the HuffPost homepage.

After months of negotiating with the banks and determining the amount of money needed, the Administration has announced (this morning) that they will be doing exactly what HuffPost has been criticizing them for not doing all week.

This is actually a pretty historic announcement. $14 billion dollars are being used to lower the principal amount owed on home loans. Considering that HuffPost was so vocal about the importance of this, even just yesterday...why is this story not appearing ANYWHERE on their homepage?

Are "Shockingly Sexy Novels," which currently appear on the homepage, more important than digging out of the housing crisis? No...this has nothing to do with newsworthiness. The Huffpost is not much better than all Journalism that came before it - in essence, a negative story with a clear enemy goes to page 1. A story about progress, even one that turns yesterday's page 1 enemy into a hero, gets buried.

Catholic Church: "Oh S#$%"

The Vicar of Christ on Earth is directly responsible for hiding/ignoring child rape in the church. The Catholic Church has not seen a crisis like this in centuries.

I Heart Andrew Sullivan

He disagrees with me on Dan Choi, but at least he published my dissent! It started a small wave of emails from his readers, so instead of writing any more myself, here's a link to the reader comments on Dan Choi and DADT

Dan Choi, Kathy Griffin, HRC, and the Face of DADT

This is inspired by a facebook post I responded to earlier today. There have been a couple public developments in the fight against DADT. These two developments leave me frustrated.

Dan Choi has become a poster child of sorts. Most recently, he chained himself to the White House fence in crucifix position. I personally think that invoking Christ is not the way to win an argument on DADT, and chaining yourself to a fence is a cry for attention that doesn't actually achieve anything.

I feel that over-activism usually works against a worthy cause. Self righteously chaining yourself to a fence and making a spectacle makes it easy to dismiss the seriousness of DADT. This kind of behavior makes us look like the radical fringe that the right wing wants us to be. I am neither radical nor fringe, and most of the people at the SLDN Dinner this weekend are not either.

Another new development is the nomination of Kathy Griffin by HRC to be the spokesperson for the movement to repeal DADT. I actually love Kathy Griffin. She's bold, she's tells it like it is, and she's a great comedian! But she is not a soldier and she is not representative of the LGBT soldier.

Enlisting a loud mouth fag hag comedian to be the spokesperson for the repeal of DADT paints a picture of LGBT soldiers that is neither accurate, nor relatable to the opposition. Once again, HRC has shown that they are good at throwing parties with the popular people. When it comes to a serious discussion on serious change, they appear to be falling short. And as much as I love Kathy Griffin, I wish she would stick to what she is really good at - making me laugh.

Government is DOing

I am already a supporter of the Obama administration. Though, I'm generally not a supporter of single party congressional power, as I think mixed government is the most fair way to rule.

Still, I can't help but be amazed at how much our government is actually getting DONE.

-We've finally grown a pair and are taking a strong stand in mideast talks between Israel and Palestine (I predict Hillary will be remembered for this more than many things).

-We have become a full partner with the Mexican government in the drug war.

-We have and continue to change the way banks are run and regulated.

-We are continually making affordable housing and foreclosure assistance available to Americans (thanks Mom!)

-The words "gay, domestic partner, and homosexual" have been spoken in positive light by the President on many occasions.

-There is a Senate Bill to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

-And of course there's the Health Care Bill - the largest piece of legislation aimed at helping an under-served group of Americans since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To paraphrase Rachel Maddow from her show last night, today's government is not just increasing taxes slightly, signing off on a budget and making sure things keep running smoothly. Today's government, especially with regard to Health Care, is actually identifying and correcting large-scale inequalities that exist in America. They are doing their job and I'm very glad to see it.

Re-inventing the Mortgage

Maybe it's my fever speaking through me right now, but after musings with a friend today, I really got thinking. Does anyone stay in/own their house for 30 years any more? I have only empirical data to back this up, but it seems to me that living in a home for a very extended amount of time is not as common as it was when 30 year fixed loans were created. In large cities or new developments where the housing boom flourished this year, it is easy to see that the turning over of property is much more frequent. Why then, are the instruments with which to buy property (mortgages) still only tailored to the long-term homeowner, when short term homeowners are becoming more common?

Obviously ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) were an attempt to find common ground. This attempt was shortsighted to say the least.

There must be a way safe to reconcile the structure of the loan with the actual housing/living habits of the homeowner. I'm not a math wiz, so I haven't gotten that far yet...but let's keep pondering

Lenten Sacrifice

Currently, I'm not a very religious person, and even when I was I never liked the idea of giving up something for Lent. Maybe I was too childish at the time, too selfish? Both were probably accurate, and I hope now that I am neither.

Though religion eludes me, I can understand and appreciate the meaning of Lent. Jesus, before beginning his ministry, spent 40 days in the desert fasting and praying - basically, getting ready to be the Messiah. The Christian Lenten tradition of sacrifice is supposed to be the modern Christian's way of acting like Christ did during these 40 days and getting closer to God.

Unfortunately, there is so much emphasis put on "sacrifice" today that the praying part of Christ's 40 days gets lost in Lent. When faced with two options - giving up carbs for 40 days or praying regularly and intently for 40 days - I suspect most people would say that option 1 is easier. I believe that this is why many Christians hold onto the sacrifice part of Lent, and ignore the prayer/introspection part of it. As most of us know, it's easier to close the pantry than look deeply into oneself. I can attest to the difficulty of the latter.

Even for the non religious types, Lent has a good lesson. Take time to spend with yourself. Look inside, challenge your beliefs and habits. Get yourself ready to be more passionate about something, or more open, or more aware of your own thoughts. I spend so much time focusing on external problems, that the internal ones can easily be ignored. I know I'm not alone in this.

Today's Fun/Crazy Story

I went to buy Tylenol at the convenience store in my building because I'm starting to have some sinus and throat pain. The Chinese lady who runs the store stopped me and said, "no no no, I heal you. Natural, healthy living, werwy wewry healthy." She told me how she prays to god everyday because he lets her eat and drink healthy and she doesn't get sick. She proceeded to pull several powders and liquid droppers from the back of the store and made me some kind of herbal, holistic, magic potion healing tea. She said (and acted out) that I would drink this and then kick down the door on my way out because I feel so strong [imagine a little Chinese lady pretending to kick down a door, then posing like a body builder, arms in the air and flexing her biceps]. I am now drinking a $5 cup of tea that tastes like what I can only imagine the root of a lemon tree tastes like. Life is fun sometimes eh?

Connect

I'm finally returning to my (mostly) daily writing. I've been interrupted with a series of events, which have given me lots of time to think, and hopefully some of those thoughts will translate to this blog.

Today's post is about relationships - not the romantic kind, but more about general friendly and familial relationships we develop throughout our lives. Let me start, however, by talking about death. When someone in our life dies, we all have different ways of dealing with it. A very close member of my family passed away recently, and I had my share of tears, public and private. The emotional and physical exhaustion of grief can become too much, however. Though I am still saddened by the void in my life, I turn to the more pragmatic side of me to mourn my grandmother and honor her life. I have been reflecting on what I have learned from this person who helped raise me? How has she made my life better, and how can I use the same methods to make other people's lives better?

Love. That's what Gigi was really good at. She never missed an opportunity to start a friendship with someone she met along the way. It didn't matter what circumstance brought you into her life - if you were her florist, a Baroness who lived down the road, an in-law new to the family, an overworked CEO she met at a party, a realtor showing the house next door, a stubborn grandkid - she made time for you. She put aside her busyness, masked her physical pain, and brought a disarming smile to every conversation so that you could feel comfortable and loved while you were with her.

I used to be a lot like her in this way. I remember as a kid being full of affection for others, walking up to strangers and saying, "hey, how ya doin?" I know exactly where this openness came from. Yet, somewhere along the way, with work, life, school, stress, insecurity, I lost a lot of that. I suspect I'm not alone here. It's easy for us to get bogged down in ourselves, and forget that we are surrounded by people all yearning (though they may not admit it) for the same thing we are - a connection.

Some people reading this are going to have a cynic's view - "I have enough friends already." Others are going to say, "yeah I'm totally with you - I'll start next week." Well, I just don't believe the cynic, and I don't know if next week will even come. So, connect today, right now. Literally, go on facebook, or pick up the phone and contact someone you normally wouldn't. If it doesn't somehow make you or them smile, then let me know and I'll change that.

Snow Does NOT Challenge Global Warming. I Repeat...

The Washington Times ran an editorial thanking the snow gods for proving that global warming doesn't exist.

Is the Times totally mad? Yes. Well - pigheaded and stupid is more like it. Precipitation (moisture in the air) and Temperature (that thing that Al Gore says is rising) are completely different. We had a bunch of moisture coming up from the South recently, and because it's winter, that moisture turns into snow. If it were summer, it would be rain. Would the teabaggers be crying afoul then? Well - probably, and they'd be just as stupid. There's no link to Snowmageddon and Global Warming. Our winter has been roughly the same temperature as it was last year, just more precipitation.

Do facts mean anything over at the Times?

Ebbing

I didn't write this, but please, may it encourage all 5 of you who read my blog to live today for today.

It begins slowly. A birthday forgotten, glasses misplaced, a letter lost, a bill unpaid, car keys which keep vanishing, rules of a poker game confused, a deadline missed, a phone call un-returrned or returned twice, a dinner date kept - on the wrong night; clothes mismatched, names forgotten, friends ignored, messages mixed up, words elusive, old jokes told and re-told again and again and again as if for the first time.

Little things. Unimportant individually. But together they send a cruel message.

The mind is going away. Slowly. And the body is not far behind.

Falling? How did I end up tush over heels in the bath tub? Or in the window well? Nothing bruised or broken. Certainly wasn’t dizziness – just an isolated incident. Ignore it.

Driving? Where did that VDOT truck come from? I’m sure it wasn’t there when I pulled out of the driveway. Fortunately, we have another vehicle – didn’t really need the truck and no one was hurt. But… a trip to Costco or Harris Teeter, once a quick jaunt…has now become a challenge. Any drive beyond the confines of Middleburg becomes a question: “Is this really necessary”? (Local merchants who charge three times the normal price for everything are delighted !)

Fix a leak, repair a broken valve…replace a ceiling light bulb…kneel to pull weeds, plant bulbs, drive the tractor …such simple things…. once the pride of

manhood… now difficult, often impossible. Where did those abilities go? How

did they vanish seemingly overnight?

Entertaining. We were the “party people”. Loved giving dinners for friends; cocktail parties for a hundred (or more); Christmas or New Years? Birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, welcome to the neighborhood? Come to our house! What fun they were, those parties of yesterday. Now even the thought of guests sends me spiraling. What to serve, who to invite, what flowers or favors or fun stuff can one produce when simply getting from the kitchen to the living room is a challenge? When living with pain becomes a daily reality.

“A” types don’t accept reality….they try to defy it. Until they can’t. How long can we pretend to ignore the creeping paralysis of mind and body? Push yourself, we say. Write that column, mow that lawn, attend that Benefit affair, call that friend, finish the project so long ignored, volunteer for the Church auction, and pray that no one notices those failing physical and mental frailities.

Find beauty in turning leaves and changing times. And bless those who make each day possible.

-AWB

Things are Changing

There's plenty to write about this week. DADT is all over the news, and top military leaders are calling for its repeal. Who can argue with an order from the top?

We're currently in two wars, and 3 American soldiers were just killed by a roadside bomb in Pakistan. Are we going to find ourselves in a third war? Scary thought huh?

AIG executives, again, find a way to swindle tax payers into paying for their yachts. And Obama won't grow a pair and stand up to them, citing "contract obstacles."

One of my "local banks" was closed by the FDIC, and asset control is now assumed by another local bank. I moved my money without even knowing it.

What does this all amount to? Things are changing - a lot.

Union of the State

Very cleverly, last night Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to start getting along. Moreoever, he told them to stop selfishly trying to advanced their careers, and start legislating FOR the people who elected them. He told the Democrats to stop being pansies (finally), and he told the Republicans to take some responsibility for legislating instead of blindly saying no to everything. Nobel words, and I hope he keeps his promise to constantly and publicly engage the Republican party to bring more cohesion across the aisle.

To paraphrase the President, there are some issues we just won't agree on, but we can agree on some basic things that all people deserve, like better access to doctors, a more stable economy, access to more jobs, and yes, equal rights for people who are willing to die for America. I can shoot a rifle as well or better than the other armsmen in the lanes next to me at Blue Ridge Arsenal, I go to the gym more than most of them, and I can run faster than most of them. Yet, I'm not allowed to save their ass from international threats while maintaining honesty with my peers. It's asinine (thanks a lot Clinton).

Obama made some good, direct suggestions for Congress. One of my favorites was getting rid of the capital gains tax for small businesses. Like DADT, it's about time. He also suggested some republican-like energy options (coal and offshore oil drilling). This was smart smart smart. If you want to bring cooperation across the aisle, then it has to come from both sides.

I would have liked him to speak more to the American people and say something like, "Dear Americans, your elected officials owe it to you to spend their time legislating and not campaigning. Call, email, write to them to tell them to start spending more time on the Hill and less time on Meet the Press."

The Senator from Wal Mart

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns.

There is no way that my voice will or can be as powerful as the voice of a corporation when it comes to political support during elections. Why is a corporation being treated like an individual? The special interest money is going to start pouring in and elections will truly be different from now on. This is sad and wrong.

Balance Of Power, Remember That?

I truly believe that Government is most responsible when multiple parties share power. When the White House, Senate and House or Representatives are all controlled by the same machine, what we have is a majority forcing their will on a minority. That is counter to the ideology of our system of Government, but moreover it's dangerous. Look what happened in California when a majority forced its will on a minority...

The fact that the Dems no longer have a super majority is a good thing. It means that they must work on legislation that appeals to everyone, not just an elite group of liberals.

A Quick Thought About Online Dating

I've never been a fan of online dating. It seems artificial and impersonal to me. Even so, I had a thought this weekend while talking about dating websites with a friend. Many of us spend most of our daylight hours online. Therefore, doesn't meeting someone there sort of make sense?

It's like, if you spend a lot of time on the tennis court, you'll probably meet someone on the tennis court.

Maybe online dating says less about how we meet people and date, and more about how (or where) we spend most of our time.

Dream A Little

Note - when I first started contemplating this post, I swear it had nothing to do with King's "I have a Dream Speech," but in hindsight that seems to apply as well, and is timely on MLK weekend.

Do you know someone with a Type A personality? Someone who goes by the numbers, makes decisions based on logic, evidence, facts, quantifiable data? Sure...we all know someone like this, or are that person ourselves. Type A's are not dreamers. They get stuff done, line ducks up, plan and react methodically. At different times in my life, I have vacillated between the two types. Playing the violin, though you might think is a dreamer's avocation, takes a very methodical discipline. There's nothing dreamy about sitting in a room for 3 hours playing the same 13 notes over and over and over again. Burying my head in books for 3.5 years getting a BA in English is where my type B really came out. It was a fun degree!

I don't mean to get too off topic, though. I want to talk about the necessity of dreaming. An example:

At work, we're going through a growth/change period of taking a look more closely at numbers, metrics, quantifiable goals, and the like. It's something that my company hasn't done to this degree before, and I have to admit there is a lot of comfort in knowing what the exact target is for a particular week, quarter, year, or individual. Spreadsheeting a job, or your life for that matter, makes it more accessible, tangible, and therefore controllable. Life is easier when you can define it.

On the flip side of things, I keep remembering how my company was created. My boss had an idea for something that didn't exist yet. He took out way too much personal debt, asked family and friends to believe in him and loan him money, and he created something that didn't really take off for a while. It eventually became an INC 500 company and now enjoys a good reputation within the software world. After 10 years of being in business, it is only now that we are implementing the Type A stuff. It wasn't spreadsheets, hard targets and data that got Capterra where it is today...it was essentially a bit of dreaming.

Now that the dream has proven itself more than fleeting, enter Type A. It's a good, worthy dream, so let's turn into work horses and make this dream a little more tangible. Some call this type of activity "growing up," or "being more serious." I would put forth that the true grown up stuff is recognizing the necessity of both the dream and the implementation. Recognizing that they each have their own time and role, neither of which less or more important than the other's.

A lot could be written here, but for brevity I'll just end with a thought. Even when you want to stick to the comfort of data and facts, don't forget to dream a bit - something good usually comes out of it.

Obama's Bank Fee - what are your thoughts?

Obama is proposing a bank fee that is based on the size of a banks' balance sheet. Essentially, the more risk a bank takes on, the higher the "fee" will be.

First of all, it's a tax. Call a spade a spade. Secondly, it's misdirected. The administration seems to be saying that this fee is supposed to encourage banks not to shell out huge bonuses (many of which are given after the bank took taxpayer money). Punishing a bank for its leverage doesn't really address the problem of huge bonuses. Why not punish a bank for making bonuses after taking tarp money? Wouldn't that actually solve the problem President Obama trying to resolve?

In my mind the worst aspect of this fee is that it can be applied to banks who never took a dime of taxpayer money. This robin hooding is unfair. Banks who are successful, and don't rely on government bailouts, are being punished.

What are your thoughts?

The Bible is Not a F%#$ing Weapon

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Just like that, Mr. Robertson permits the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because of a pact they apparently made with the devil. C'mon...this isn't a Disney movie Mr. Robertson. Your "pact" amounts to no more than them being born in a different location and of a different skin tone than you. Mr. Robertson, did the Archbishop of Haiti who perished in the earthquake also have a pact with the devil? Did the unborn and newly born children of Haiti also have a pact with the devil? Did the humanitarian workers, the average law abiding Hatians, even the petty thieves in Haiti, have a pact with the devil? No.

The idea that being Christian makes you an authority on Godliness is preposterous and completely out of line with the teaching of Jesus Christ. If I sound angry here it's because I am, and you should be too dear readers. Mr. Robertson, and millions of people like him, use God and the Bible to justify bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist views. They use the bible to permit and excuse the annihilation of millions of people due to natural disasters (and I would argue unnatural deaths as well). These people are using your God to achieve hatred. Mr. Robertson and those like him are to Christianity what the Jihadists are to the religion of Islam - dangerous, hate-flled extremes.

If Mr. Robertson, or anyone else including you, wants to actually act like a Christian or a decent human being, then send money, thoughts, prayers, food, whatever you have, to Haiti. Any decent human being should be saying "how can I help?" not "they deserved it." Here's one way you can help:

To assist relief efforts: text "HAITI" to "90999" and $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross, charged to your cell phone bill. Or text "Yele" to 501501 and $5 will be donated to Wyclef Jean Charity. Seriously, it's a couple of dollars...you can afford it. They can't afford not to have it.

2009 mashup

I know it's two weeks late, but for anyone who hasn't seen it!

no title for this one

I watched a movie tonight called Conspiracy. It's a recreation of the Wannsee Conference of 1942 during which Hitler's "Final Solution" was agreed upon by SS and other Nazi leaders. There are many striking aspects to this film, and one which resonated with me was the lack of humanity and emotion in much of the dialogue about the Jewish people that were to be terminated. The Nazi leaders, probably out of fear for their own lives, had stuffed all emotion deep inside themselves, hiding it away, and were treating Jewish people like parts on an assembly line, or simple objects that had to be dealt with. There's no denying this is a horrible way to go about life - yet, I think to some extent we all still do it.

Please know, it is not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust here, but rather to pull some tangible lesson from an event that was so gross in concept and scale that comprehending it as a whole defies words.

There is a danger in pushing your human feelings so deep inside so that you cannot experience them. On a large and hard to imagine scale, as is horribly depicted in Conspiracy, you can forget that everyone on this earth is a human being, and that they have as much right to breath the air as you do. On a smaller and more identifiable scale, ignoring your emotions is dangerous because it makes you capable of treating other people in your life as if they have no humanity themselves. When you smother your own ability to feel, you also smother your ability to empathize. The result is that you disregard people as objects, doing and saying things to them without the ability to understand or care how it will affect them.

We've all done this, knowingly or not. And some of us continue, knowingly or not. Don't sit quietly and ignore a voice that is trying to bubble up from inside of you. Don't push away a thought, a conversation, or a person because you don't want to deal with a particular feeling. If you get too good at doing this, you'll end up hurting a lot more people than you're able to realize.

"Hi, I'm Joe. What do you do?"

If you live in DC, you know how it goes...you meet someone for the first time, and the second question out of their mouth is "what do you do?"

Lately, I've been frustrated by this question. I actually love my job and love talking about to people about it (check out www.Capterra.com). However, when this question precedes nearly everything else in the conversation, it can seem like an interview question. I know I'm not alone in thinking that "what do you do?" can roughly be rephrased as, "can your job help me in some way?" or "is what you do cool enough for my attention?"

There are those who are genuinely interested in how you chose to spend a third of your day, but more often than not I sense that "what do you do" is more about who is asking than who is answering. I recently spent a week in Chicago, meeting a bunch of new people at several parties. Only twice (I counted) was I asked about my job. It was extremely refreshing to make new friends and not discuss or care about what we do for work.

Even when you have a job you love, there are many other ways to define yourself. This philosophy goes back to my post a few days ago about doing things that make you smile outside of a paycheck. Surely there's a lot more to you and your friends than what they do, so try ignoring that question next time you meet someone - I bet you'll have a much more interesting conversation.

What Makes You Smile?

Before you had a job, before you worried about paying rent or building your resume or meeting a deadline, what did you do for fun? Did you play baseball? Video games? An instrument?

I ran cross country and played the violin. I try to do both of those things still, but don't always have time unfortunately. I find that when I'm not able to do both of those things with some regularity, I feel a little less happy. Part of that is probably the endorphins from running, but I think more of it is the freedom in being able to do something for myself - not for a paycheck, or for gaining experience, or any any other number of reasons we do things that aren't our first choice - but just for me.

Even when we do work, and have bills, and responsibilities we don't necessarily want, we still have the ability to do something for ourselves everyday. Turning off your morning alarm on your birthday, watching tv for a few extra minutes, eating food you like even if it's not in your diet. Be selfish, do something that is going to make you smile.

Gun Control

It's not an easy topic to talk about, as we all have different relationships with guns. I grew up shooting paper targets at indoor ranges, and I've enjoyed picking it up again. I live in a city where my best friend has been held up in his own condo building. In this city, semi-automatic guns are legal and there are a lot of angry people here - that's a dangerous combination. As much as I want the government to leave everyone alone, I'm also scared that mean people have access to guns.

So which one wins out - fear or free rights?

Keep Learning

I went to the Museum of Science and Industry today in Chitown and forgot how great it is to actually learn! It's a great museum if you get the chance to go (free on Tuesdays), but really any museum you pass by deserves entry. Someone (usually a lot of people) thought that whatever is in the museum was worth investing a lot of time and money...so it probably was - don't miss out on continuing to learn!

Saying Yes

A close friend and great guy inspired me to write about "saying yes" and how empowering that can be. The word "no" comes so easily to us all...in first and second dates, in continuing new relationships, in the act of compromising (or not), in accepting responsibility at work, in opening yourself up to a new friend, and letting someone step in front of you in line at the supermarket - this list could go on.

Did you see that Jim Carey movie "Yes Man?" In it, Jim Carey was unable to say no to anything, and had a wild series of adventures, and a much more interesting life than anyone you or I probably know. I encourage you to start saying "yes" to more in your life. It's so easy to hide behind the word "no" but when yo do that you miss out on a new friend, a new memory, a good story to tell down the road, and who knows...even a new career or life partner.

Many of us can feel tied down by work, or family commitments, or social constraints, but saying "yes" is very freeing, and you should empower yourself to let go of your strings and start saying yes to things that would normally give you pause. I think that "saying yes" will be a recurring theme this year for me, so I hope it will be for you too.

Defining Marriage

I don't want to talk about gay marriage rights here. Instead, I want to talk about how to define any marriage or relationship in the context of commitment, respect, support, patience, and other ingredients.

Some questions to start with: is a spell of verbal abuse any more tolerable than a cheating spouse? Is a sexless relationship any more tolerable than a relationship void of respect or love? Is an open relationship any more or less acceptable than secret infidelity?

I use two words in these questions very purposefully; tolerable and acceptable. Relationships, notably long-lasting marriages, are an exercise in tolerating things you prefer not to for the sake of commitment. Relationships are also defined by both participants and outsiders determining what is and is not acceptable - this is usually where people (myself included) tend to judge other relationships. Some people call these rules, some call them morals, and some call them mandates from God. These rules, if you will, are different for everyone.

For some, years of drug abuse is tolerable, while a regretful act of infidelity is not. For others, the sharing of finances and spending is more strictly regulated than promiscuity. Still, others have seemingly conventional rules yet have lost any feelings of love between the individuals.

In my limited relationship experience, my own idea of what is acceptable and tolerable leans heavily to the conventional side. But I know that what is right for me has two characteristics: it is only applicable to me and my life, and it may change over the course of my life. I haven't been with anyone for more than a couple years, so I don't know how more or less tolerable I'll be with someone after 20 years of marriage. I also know that my definition of a relationship is my own, and that hopefully helps me to be less judgmental of other relationships.

It seems strange to be writing about relationships considering I'm single...but having had a good bit of time pass since my last committed relationship allows me to look back at the big picture of things. Whatever your philosophy is, you need to define your unique relationship with your partner clearly. You also have to trust that he or she will honor that. This relationship defining moment isn't unique to the altar at your wedding, or your first DTR talk...people change throughout their whole lives, so relationships also change throughout their lives.

I must say thank you to two good friends and a bottle of 1800 for opening up this conversation over lunch earlier today. I'm sure it's a conversation that will continue...

Huffpost Rallying Cry for Banking Local May Leave us Crying

This week, Arianna Huffington started a rallying cry for Americans to move their money out of big banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, BofA, and Wells Fargo) and into local banks. The reason for this is to reward local banks for being responsible by not taking tax payer money and not shelling out big bonuses despite failing balance sheets, and punish big banks for being irresponsible in doing the opposite.

Initial reports indicate that some Americans are listening to the media maven. Some, like me, will move money for better interest rates and better customer service (thank you USAA). Others, will do it simply because Arianna says it's a good idea.

The notion of rushing the national banks is very very scary. What would happen if JP Morgan lost 50% of its deposits? Lending would basically stop, they wouldn't be able to invest anymore, and wouldn't have the ability to continue to pay back the loans that taxpayers have given through stimulus funding. It's important to remember that the big banks are all paying back their loans on time with interest. Arianna seems intent on ruining the big banks, but surely her economics professors from Cambridge would be worrisome of such a dramatic rush on the banks that hold most of Americans' wealth and investments.

If we as a society have a problem with banks shelling out large bonuses (and we should have a problem with this!), then let's address that problem. Instead of taking our money away from national banks, let's take our votes away from the regulators who are not enforcing a seemingly fair ethical code on the entities they are funding. Does anyone truly think our economy can survive right now without these large financial institutions? Their infrastructure, their relationships with other lenders, loan servicers, and international banks allows them to do things that local banks simply can't. A large bank can afford to write down a mortgage to allow a homeowner to stay in their home...many local banks cannot afford something like this.

Another problem with the local bank rallying cry is that we don't have any evidence that local banks are more responsible or ethical than big banks. In fact, considering that local banks have less scrutiny by regulators as well as media, who's to say that they don't actually get away with more questionable activity when it comes to spending their customers' cash on bonuses or shaky investments? Story after story comes out of local banks closing because they gave out reckless loans. Is my money any safer at my local corner bank? There is no data to suggest that.

As an individual, you decided to put your money in XYZ bank. Before you decide to up and take it all out because HuffPost says so, how about looking at the finances of your banking institution. Are they paying back their tarp loan? Have you actually called or written to the bank and asked them to stop paying out big bonuses with your taxpayer-financed loan? This might be a good first step in getting the big banks to play a friendlier game. Is the alternative smaller bank going to treat you better and be more responsible with your money? Is there any net gain for you in switching? I'm not saying that moving local is the wrong decision for everyone, but it's a personal decision...not one to be made by a media giant.