This recession is depressing. I’m not talking about the daily news – it’s good, it’s bad, it’s not so bad, it’ worse, it’s great – that has us constantly wondering when it will be over (2010?). And I’m not talking about how we can’t spend anything because we’re worried about losing a job and not being able to pay necessary expenses (because I always try to be a light spender, recession or no).
The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.
When it was busy.
That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!
And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”
This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.
Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.
More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.
There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.
I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An Undefiled Legacy
I feel a sensation somewhat like relief as George W. Bush slowly fades out of the public limelight and into whatever history will make of him. It’s not because I feel that the country is “on the right track” now, or that our future is somehow better or safer without our former president. It’s the opposite.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Mornings...bleh
So I have decided to start waking up earlier to blog. I never cease to be amazed that I can sleep in until 7:30 on a weekday and still get to work by 8:30. In fact, I can sleep in until 7:45 if I wanted to…and that includes eating breakfast. I suppose it helps that my commute does not have a lot of traffic to contend with, and that my client isn’t very far away. It definitely helps that we don’t work until 1:00 AM; otherwise I would need every second of sleep.
On the other hand, morning blogging doesn’t suit me. Sure, I can check my favorite websites for inspiration. I may have even had dreams. But my mind hasn’t reached the point yet where it is racing – thinking of all sorts of random thoughts that I just need to get out.
And topics I have been wanting to talk about, just seem to disappear. Do I blog about the swine flu? About the priest who wants to get married? About finances? Or about my job? All of these have affected me, and more, and yet, at 7:50 AM, I feel a little exhausted just thinking about “getting into” any of these topics.
Another problem is research. So far, my blog has just been my thoughts. I have not used fact or figures to back up any of my opinions, because they are just that – opinions. On the one hand, you can make a fact or statistic say anything you want. On the other hand, can I really stand up and state my belief in something unless I have some evidence for it? All in all, I like to write like C.S. Lewis. He seemed to use man’s internal logic for his writing – rarely if ever have I ever come across him say something like, “According to a recent survey…”
My final obstacle? J My new computer. I cannot explain it, but ever since I got this new computer, typing has become a chore. This is sad, because I thoroughly enjoy typing! I could sit and type all day and have nothing to actually type! But either the keyboard or the programming does something weird. If I start to typing too fast (and I type fast), then suddenly I’m accessing menu options left and right! And it’s not good…sometimes my entire document is erased…I zoom in and out uncontrollably….I had to start composing my blogs in Word because a) there’s an undo button for when I erase everything and b) I can save it. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it Vista?
So there you have it – you can expect more from me in the future. Now that all my excuses are on the table, if you don’t hear from me, you’ll know why. (And just so you know – I really was going to blog about the priest who wanted to marry this morning, but the fog over my brain prevented me from getting a good start at it).
On the other hand, morning blogging doesn’t suit me. Sure, I can check my favorite websites for inspiration. I may have even had dreams. But my mind hasn’t reached the point yet where it is racing – thinking of all sorts of random thoughts that I just need to get out.
And topics I have been wanting to talk about, just seem to disappear. Do I blog about the swine flu? About the priest who wants to get married? About finances? Or about my job? All of these have affected me, and more, and yet, at 7:50 AM, I feel a little exhausted just thinking about “getting into” any of these topics.
Another problem is research. So far, my blog has just been my thoughts. I have not used fact or figures to back up any of my opinions, because they are just that – opinions. On the one hand, you can make a fact or statistic say anything you want. On the other hand, can I really stand up and state my belief in something unless I have some evidence for it? All in all, I like to write like C.S. Lewis. He seemed to use man’s internal logic for his writing – rarely if ever have I ever come across him say something like, “According to a recent survey…”
My final obstacle? J My new computer. I cannot explain it, but ever since I got this new computer, typing has become a chore. This is sad, because I thoroughly enjoy typing! I could sit and type all day and have nothing to actually type! But either the keyboard or the programming does something weird. If I start to typing too fast (and I type fast), then suddenly I’m accessing menu options left and right! And it’s not good…sometimes my entire document is erased…I zoom in and out uncontrollably….I had to start composing my blogs in Word because a) there’s an undo button for when I erase everything and b) I can save it. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it Vista?
So there you have it – you can expect more from me in the future. Now that all my excuses are on the table, if you don’t hear from me, you’ll know why. (And just so you know – I really was going to blog about the priest who wanted to marry this morning, but the fog over my brain prevented me from getting a good start at it).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Supersize Yourself
For 12 of the last 24 months I have been on the road. I eat two of my meals a day from restaurants and company cafeterias. I usually skip breakfast. I work about 10-14 hours a day, so I don’t have much time for hitting the treadmill at the hotel after work, but I do what I can. Believe it or not, this is not necessarily the healthiest lifestyle.
I generally get sick of eating out so much after a few weeks. However, when I come back, within a few weeks (maybe even before) I am craving greasy, fatty, fast food! (I strike a balance by eating lunch out with my team at work and then having a home cooked dinner).
I watched Supersize Me today. I had seen a portion of it before, but I decided to watch the entire thing. Unlike the documentary on the Salem witch trials I also watched, nothing in this program surprised me. McDonald’s makes you fat. But this is a really famous documentary!
Although I think the method used was unscientific and the results obtained common sense, the movie was entertaining. However, instead of focusing on the “big bad fast food restaurants”, it should have focused on something it only hinted at: personal responsibility.
If Americans are overweight, it is not because there is some disease going around. Not anything we can catch, anyway. It’s called eating too much and not being active enough.
And, as I mentioned before, I’m an expert at this. Since I started my new job, I have put on weight (won’t tell you how much). However, I have also been monitoring my weight and trying to make choices that will help me to keep from gaining, as my lifestyle continues to be non-accepting of personal health.
1. Portion size – I order kid sized portions or save half of the meal for later. Both are cost effective as well as healthier.
2. Fish – I usually order fish if we are ordering dinner from a fancy restaurant. In addition to being a healthier option, it’s also brain food!
3. Calorie Monitoring – Although I cannot cook a full meal when I am on the road, I try to monitor my calories. I try to eat only one full meal out (which is usually enough to bust any diet anyway) and have healthy low-calorie snacks between meals. A second meal will be a low calorie, easy to prepare meal such as a peanut butter sandwich or a Cup-o-Soup.
I’m not an expert or dietician. These are just tricks I use. And I could probably follow more rules – I’m sure my dietician sister would prefer I track all calories consumed in a day, maybe even just shut off when I hit my limit. Or perhaps I should cut out the pop. Never!
The simple point is – fast food is not the enemy. We are our greatest enemy! By making poor food choices and poor exercise choices (which I think are probably worse) we get ourselves into a big fat mess.
The fast food restaurants responded to the attack of Supersize Me by adding healthy menu options. But I don’t go to McDonald’s for salad. I go for fries! If I want a salad I will go to Panera. Simple as that. And if I develop diabetes when I am older, or if I gain 100 pounds and have a heart problem and low self esteem, I will know it is because of my sugar and fat addiction that I have. On the other hand, if I can work out of town for a year and not have a triple-bypass at the end of it, it is also because I made good decisions.
I generally get sick of eating out so much after a few weeks. However, when I come back, within a few weeks (maybe even before) I am craving greasy, fatty, fast food! (I strike a balance by eating lunch out with my team at work and then having a home cooked dinner).
I watched Supersize Me today. I had seen a portion of it before, but I decided to watch the entire thing. Unlike the documentary on the Salem witch trials I also watched, nothing in this program surprised me. McDonald’s makes you fat. But this is a really famous documentary!
Although I think the method used was unscientific and the results obtained common sense, the movie was entertaining. However, instead of focusing on the “big bad fast food restaurants”, it should have focused on something it only hinted at: personal responsibility.
If Americans are overweight, it is not because there is some disease going around. Not anything we can catch, anyway. It’s called eating too much and not being active enough.
And, as I mentioned before, I’m an expert at this. Since I started my new job, I have put on weight (won’t tell you how much). However, I have also been monitoring my weight and trying to make choices that will help me to keep from gaining, as my lifestyle continues to be non-accepting of personal health.
1. Portion size – I order kid sized portions or save half of the meal for later. Both are cost effective as well as healthier.
2. Fish – I usually order fish if we are ordering dinner from a fancy restaurant. In addition to being a healthier option, it’s also brain food!
3. Calorie Monitoring – Although I cannot cook a full meal when I am on the road, I try to monitor my calories. I try to eat only one full meal out (which is usually enough to bust any diet anyway) and have healthy low-calorie snacks between meals. A second meal will be a low calorie, easy to prepare meal such as a peanut butter sandwich or a Cup-o-Soup.
I’m not an expert or dietician. These are just tricks I use. And I could probably follow more rules – I’m sure my dietician sister would prefer I track all calories consumed in a day, maybe even just shut off when I hit my limit. Or perhaps I should cut out the pop. Never!
The simple point is – fast food is not the enemy. We are our greatest enemy! By making poor food choices and poor exercise choices (which I think are probably worse) we get ourselves into a big fat mess.
The fast food restaurants responded to the attack of Supersize Me by adding healthy menu options. But I don’t go to McDonald’s for salad. I go for fries! If I want a salad I will go to Panera. Simple as that. And if I develop diabetes when I am older, or if I gain 100 pounds and have a heart problem and low self esteem, I will know it is because of my sugar and fat addiction that I have. On the other hand, if I can work out of town for a year and not have a triple-bypass at the end of it, it is also because I made good decisions.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Jiggety Jig
Well I'm back in Kansas City now, for good! (maybe). I am excited this time, as opposed to last year at this time. I was running around thinking that Kansas Citians were crazy for loving their city so much.
But there are good things about Kansas City. For instance, it is very green this time of year. And there are lots of flowers. Also, it is not too big, but it is also large enough to provide ample opportunities. And, it's the city of fountains!
I have learned that there are over 200 fountains in Kansas City, and it is my new goal to visit each one and take a picture of myself in front of it! :)
I plan to get involved with activities in Kansas City and with my church!
I plan to paint the living room (don't know what color yet)!
I plan to take walks and cook my own food!
I plan to write in my blog more!
But seriously - I have discovered a problem with the blog-writing process. I usually have great ideas (in my opinion) for blogging topics when I am on the road and by myself (as I was for the last two months). However, I have no time to sit down and blog them. When my schedule frees up, either I am too busy "relaxing" or I have stated my opinion to someone close to me (whether they want to hear it or not) and subsequently erase it from my head.
So tomorrow the games begin! I can't wait to actually live in my house! Sleep in my bed! Eat food that I prepared! I can'twait to live! :)
But there are good things about Kansas City. For instance, it is very green this time of year. And there are lots of flowers. Also, it is not too big, but it is also large enough to provide ample opportunities. And, it's the city of fountains!
I have learned that there are over 200 fountains in Kansas City, and it is my new goal to visit each one and take a picture of myself in front of it! :)
I plan to get involved with activities in Kansas City and with my church!
I plan to paint the living room (don't know what color yet)!
I plan to take walks and cook my own food!
I plan to write in my blog more!
But seriously - I have discovered a problem with the blog-writing process. I usually have great ideas (in my opinion) for blogging topics when I am on the road and by myself (as I was for the last two months). However, I have no time to sit down and blog them. When my schedule frees up, either I am too busy "relaxing" or I have stated my opinion to someone close to me (whether they want to hear it or not) and subsequently erase it from my head.
So tomorrow the games begin! I can't wait to actually live in my house! Sleep in my bed! Eat food that I prepared! I can'twait to live! :)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
How to Win the Lottery
Is life a gamble? See, I'm an accountant, and I've been running some numbers in my head. I think it kind of is. Not in the typical gambling way or anything, but, yes, a gamble. Let me explain:
I've been driving around listening to the radio. One day I was listening to a song about living life. You know the type of song, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm goind to do whatever I want to do right now!" And it is implied that "whatever I want" is - well, whatever! Drugs, sex, spending money like it's going out of style...
Now, I switched over to the Christian radio station, and they had the same song on! Only instead, it went, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm going to love people and help people and draw close to God." I'm not going to lie - I feel this is a more appropriate interpretation of life. But let's run the numbers.
Let's say you choose song #1. You do whatever you want. Will this make you happy? I don't know - I suppose there are a few multi-millionaires out there who take the "live for today" approach and enjoy it. But for the average person - and even the average multi-millionaire - it's just not going to work. You will be lonely. You will be a mess - drugs and alchohol will require increasingly stronger doeses to make you happy. And who knows what "free love" will get you - kids you aren't prepared to take care of? Disease? Or just a plain old broken heart? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Add to that the Christian concept summarized in the TobyMac song, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul!" Even if you are one of the select few who can live an entirely self-centered life and be happy still, will you gain heaven? Or will you spend 70-100 happy years on earth only to spend eternity in a much less happy place.
We have to remember that what we experience here is not the best of all possible worlds. There is hope for something better, and that to waste our life for temporary gain is, well...foolish.
So then there's song #2. According to those who live by Song #1, the Song #2 livers are missing out on a lot of fun. They are probably not as rich - and if they are, they spend a lot of money helping people. Their fun is innocent. They always seem to be putting off pleasure because it's "wrong" (not participating in drugs or sex outside of marriage).
But does it pay off? In my life I see a lot of Song #2 working well - I mean, people who settle down and live a good life (even if they are not specifically Christians, but want to be good people) tend to do well. They have families who love them. They are not short on money (not having pawned their last possession for a new high). They don't get unwanted diseases.
But then, there are those who follow Song #2 and still have rotten lives. I mean, just because you are a good person and try to help people, just because you are a Christian, does not guarantee you a life of bliss. All you can do is do the best with what you have and live strong in your faith and hope that you will go to a better place in 70-100 years.
This is why it is a gamble. I think statistically Song #2 pays off - you have a chance of being happy in this world and the next!
And yet, faith seems to be a gamble for some people anyway. If you live by Song #1 - whether you are happy or not - and someone tells you to change your life because you may not go to heaven? What kind of argument is that? Isn't it just easier to believe that there is no God and continue on in your ways? And if you do believe, won't that just turn you off? People forget about forgiveness and redemption.
But to talk about the faith gamble is in essence to determine how to win at the gamble of life.
If there is no God, then the way to win the life lottery is to be one of the truly happy Song #1-ers. You can be a fairly happy Song #2-er. But like anything, it's all about risk and reward - you can lead a stable life or risk everything on the chance that you might be happy following Song #1. It doesn't matter which song you follow in the long run, though - just pick a song to follow because you only have 70-100 years.
But if there is a God, then Song #2 is definately the key to winning the lottery. And unlike Song #1, everyone who sings song #2 wins! Suddenly the risk is gone! You may be a little unhappy in this life, but you will be happy in eternity.
So what's the lesson? Well, after running the numbers (I know I'm a little biased) I think that Song #2 is the best way to live - both if you consider God or pretend He doesn't exist. So the question then becomes, why do so many people live Song #1? Why isn't the world a better place if the smart thing to do is to love each other, love God, and help each other out?
Other than the cliche, "Sin" answer, I can't tell you. Perhaps it is because life is such a gamble. Perhaps there are so many Song #1 people out there trying to actually be happy, that being a Song #2 person becomes harder and harder to do.
And yet, I speak of the lottery. I truly don't know of anyone who has been able to lead a completely selfish life and still be happy. I honestly don't know if it has happened - I just spoke of it because I thought statistically it might have. You don't really find any religion in the world that speaks of gaining inner peace through selfish acts. There is wisdom in that!
If everyone just lived out the faith they did beleive, and if people stopped trying to squash each other in pursuit of winning Life's Lottery, then the world would be a better place. Living Song #2 wouldn't seem like sacrificing anything at all, because in loving one another, the whole world could be gained! And people could find peace and happiness both in this life and the life to come.
I've been driving around listening to the radio. One day I was listening to a song about living life. You know the type of song, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm goind to do whatever I want to do right now!" And it is implied that "whatever I want" is - well, whatever! Drugs, sex, spending money like it's going out of style...
Now, I switched over to the Christian radio station, and they had the same song on! Only instead, it went, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm going to love people and help people and draw close to God." I'm not going to lie - I feel this is a more appropriate interpretation of life. But let's run the numbers.
Let's say you choose song #1. You do whatever you want. Will this make you happy? I don't know - I suppose there are a few multi-millionaires out there who take the "live for today" approach and enjoy it. But for the average person - and even the average multi-millionaire - it's just not going to work. You will be lonely. You will be a mess - drugs and alchohol will require increasingly stronger doeses to make you happy. And who knows what "free love" will get you - kids you aren't prepared to take care of? Disease? Or just a plain old broken heart? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Add to that the Christian concept summarized in the TobyMac song, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul!" Even if you are one of the select few who can live an entirely self-centered life and be happy still, will you gain heaven? Or will you spend 70-100 happy years on earth only to spend eternity in a much less happy place.
We have to remember that what we experience here is not the best of all possible worlds. There is hope for something better, and that to waste our life for temporary gain is, well...foolish.
So then there's song #2. According to those who live by Song #1, the Song #2 livers are missing out on a lot of fun. They are probably not as rich - and if they are, they spend a lot of money helping people. Their fun is innocent. They always seem to be putting off pleasure because it's "wrong" (not participating in drugs or sex outside of marriage).
But does it pay off? In my life I see a lot of Song #2 working well - I mean, people who settle down and live a good life (even if they are not specifically Christians, but want to be good people) tend to do well. They have families who love them. They are not short on money (not having pawned their last possession for a new high). They don't get unwanted diseases.
But then, there are those who follow Song #2 and still have rotten lives. I mean, just because you are a good person and try to help people, just because you are a Christian, does not guarantee you a life of bliss. All you can do is do the best with what you have and live strong in your faith and hope that you will go to a better place in 70-100 years.
This is why it is a gamble. I think statistically Song #2 pays off - you have a chance of being happy in this world and the next!
And yet, faith seems to be a gamble for some people anyway. If you live by Song #1 - whether you are happy or not - and someone tells you to change your life because you may not go to heaven? What kind of argument is that? Isn't it just easier to believe that there is no God and continue on in your ways? And if you do believe, won't that just turn you off? People forget about forgiveness and redemption.
But to talk about the faith gamble is in essence to determine how to win at the gamble of life.
If there is no God, then the way to win the life lottery is to be one of the truly happy Song #1-ers. You can be a fairly happy Song #2-er. But like anything, it's all about risk and reward - you can lead a stable life or risk everything on the chance that you might be happy following Song #1. It doesn't matter which song you follow in the long run, though - just pick a song to follow because you only have 70-100 years.
But if there is a God, then Song #2 is definately the key to winning the lottery. And unlike Song #1, everyone who sings song #2 wins! Suddenly the risk is gone! You may be a little unhappy in this life, but you will be happy in eternity.
So what's the lesson? Well, after running the numbers (I know I'm a little biased) I think that Song #2 is the best way to live - both if you consider God or pretend He doesn't exist. So the question then becomes, why do so many people live Song #1? Why isn't the world a better place if the smart thing to do is to love each other, love God, and help each other out?
Other than the cliche, "Sin" answer, I can't tell you. Perhaps it is because life is such a gamble. Perhaps there are so many Song #1 people out there trying to actually be happy, that being a Song #2 person becomes harder and harder to do.
And yet, I speak of the lottery. I truly don't know of anyone who has been able to lead a completely selfish life and still be happy. I honestly don't know if it has happened - I just spoke of it because I thought statistically it might have. You don't really find any religion in the world that speaks of gaining inner peace through selfish acts. There is wisdom in that!
If everyone just lived out the faith they did beleive, and if people stopped trying to squash each other in pursuit of winning Life's Lottery, then the world would be a better place. Living Song #2 wouldn't seem like sacrificing anything at all, because in loving one another, the whole world could be gained! And people could find peace and happiness both in this life and the life to come.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Evolution of Good
Philosophy is never far from me. I feel it has been repressed by busyness recently, as have my posts. However, just because I have no time to discuss or write about my thoughts, does not mean I am not having them. As of late, I have been thinking of morality.
I find it interesting how morality changes and molds. We, as westerners, are used to the Judeo Christian sense of morality. We have "The Law." And it guides our own laws. Some moral laws are not governmental laws, and yet, they are known. When Jesus came, he did not institute, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." But he did bring it up, mention it, live it out in his own life, and then command us to do the same.
Somehow we didn't. This is what I find interesting. If you read the Bible, certain practices common to the times had become repugnant to the Jews, even in the era before Christ. I speak mostly of Human Sacrifice, but also of the concept of temple prostitutes. The linking of murder and prostitution to religion was a double offense, for any pagan practices were forbidden by the Jewish people as a whole.
When Christianity took over the Western world, a new order of laws and morality did not spring up. If anything, some of the old morality held its ground - war for power's sake, greed, prejudice, injustice. Pagan rituals went away, but to our 21st Century eyes, the world was still a Dark place.
Which is why I find it fascinating the strides that morality has taken in only the last two hundred years or so! The American concept - that "all men are created equal" set something new into motion. And yet, it was a Christian idea - to love each other means to treat each other with respect.
Other improvements that our Western society has seen has been the abolishment of slavery, women's rights, and the end of state sanctioned (and even societal) prejudice based on race.
All these changes seem, in my eyes (which may have been preconditioned by the society that made the changes mind you) to be completely fitting and wholesome. Part of the Christian ideal.
And yet, historically speaking, I see how hard it was for some of these ideals to come about. I hold certain ideas about sin - what is right and what is wrong. I have ideas about what is acceptable and is not. What is criminal and is humane. What is something I can participate in, and something I should fight against.
But the lessons of history teach me that my morality may be shaken. The improvements in morality I have observed seemed to tumble exponentially on top of each other, once put in place. And if the growth continues, I see a time where my morality will be outpaced. If you will - my morals will be old fashioned, cease to be morals, and instead will be backward, prejudiced thoughts.
All the changing and "growing" in morality makes me wonder how good and bad can really change. I am a Christian. The people who lived two, three, four hundred years ago were Christians. How did they reconcile the attrocities they committed to their faith? Did they even try, or were they just pretending? If morality of a society can change, then is the morality that I am dead certain exists, the morality that society may change for me, wrong?
There are certain universal truths to morality that span the boundaries of culture and religion. Murder. Wrong. But human sacrifice - has been known to be okay. The difference? Stealing. Wrong. But some will argue that those who are starving to death need what they take. Adultery. Wrong. But in our society new propoganda arises - "Some people made a mistake in marriage. Why should they be punished for their mistake with the shackles of fidelity?"
Am I glad that we had moral progress in the last few centuries? Of course! I hope that, even if I had lived in those cultures, I would have stood as a minority in my charity. But I can never be certain that I would have.
What I have been discovering more and more recently is that the world is not black and white: it is grey. I think I knew that growing up. However, even though the world is grey, people can, and should be black and white. What I mean is that, any action can be viewed as moral or immoral. Good or bad. A sin or not. However, as people, we don't get the right to examine the motives (unless a person is on trial) and determine if there was more good or more bad behind the action. Only God can do that.
But when we give into grey, then we allow ourselves to slip from white to black. If we hold on to white, we may be wrong, but at least it is a well-intentioned wrong. While grey may be well intentioned, it is losing its footing and sliding down a slope where it grows blacker and blacker. It's hard to be black and white - or white to use my analogy. And yet, I believe it's necessary.
So what's this white I speak of? What is the defined morality? Well, I would say the tenets of the Christian faith. Even these people argue over and try to find the grey in. The answer, I believe, is white, but even our best attempts to be white end up a little off-white, if you will. There will be no perfection on earth. But even so, we should not deliberately go around trying to find black to mix into our off-white to turn it grey.
I find it interesting how morality changes and molds. We, as westerners, are used to the Judeo Christian sense of morality. We have "The Law." And it guides our own laws. Some moral laws are not governmental laws, and yet, they are known. When Jesus came, he did not institute, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." But he did bring it up, mention it, live it out in his own life, and then command us to do the same.
Somehow we didn't. This is what I find interesting. If you read the Bible, certain practices common to the times had become repugnant to the Jews, even in the era before Christ. I speak mostly of Human Sacrifice, but also of the concept of temple prostitutes. The linking of murder and prostitution to religion was a double offense, for any pagan practices were forbidden by the Jewish people as a whole.
When Christianity took over the Western world, a new order of laws and morality did not spring up. If anything, some of the old morality held its ground - war for power's sake, greed, prejudice, injustice. Pagan rituals went away, but to our 21st Century eyes, the world was still a Dark place.
Which is why I find it fascinating the strides that morality has taken in only the last two hundred years or so! The American concept - that "all men are created equal" set something new into motion. And yet, it was a Christian idea - to love each other means to treat each other with respect.
Other improvements that our Western society has seen has been the abolishment of slavery, women's rights, and the end of state sanctioned (and even societal) prejudice based on race.
All these changes seem, in my eyes (which may have been preconditioned by the society that made the changes mind you) to be completely fitting and wholesome. Part of the Christian ideal.
And yet, historically speaking, I see how hard it was for some of these ideals to come about. I hold certain ideas about sin - what is right and what is wrong. I have ideas about what is acceptable and is not. What is criminal and is humane. What is something I can participate in, and something I should fight against.
But the lessons of history teach me that my morality may be shaken. The improvements in morality I have observed seemed to tumble exponentially on top of each other, once put in place. And if the growth continues, I see a time where my morality will be outpaced. If you will - my morals will be old fashioned, cease to be morals, and instead will be backward, prejudiced thoughts.
All the changing and "growing" in morality makes me wonder how good and bad can really change. I am a Christian. The people who lived two, three, four hundred years ago were Christians. How did they reconcile the attrocities they committed to their faith? Did they even try, or were they just pretending? If morality of a society can change, then is the morality that I am dead certain exists, the morality that society may change for me, wrong?
There are certain universal truths to morality that span the boundaries of culture and religion. Murder. Wrong. But human sacrifice - has been known to be okay. The difference? Stealing. Wrong. But some will argue that those who are starving to death need what they take. Adultery. Wrong. But in our society new propoganda arises - "Some people made a mistake in marriage. Why should they be punished for their mistake with the shackles of fidelity?"
Am I glad that we had moral progress in the last few centuries? Of course! I hope that, even if I had lived in those cultures, I would have stood as a minority in my charity. But I can never be certain that I would have.
What I have been discovering more and more recently is that the world is not black and white: it is grey. I think I knew that growing up. However, even though the world is grey, people can, and should be black and white. What I mean is that, any action can be viewed as moral or immoral. Good or bad. A sin or not. However, as people, we don't get the right to examine the motives (unless a person is on trial) and determine if there was more good or more bad behind the action. Only God can do that.
But when we give into grey, then we allow ourselves to slip from white to black. If we hold on to white, we may be wrong, but at least it is a well-intentioned wrong. While grey may be well intentioned, it is losing its footing and sliding down a slope where it grows blacker and blacker. It's hard to be black and white - or white to use my analogy. And yet, I believe it's necessary.
So what's this white I speak of? What is the defined morality? Well, I would say the tenets of the Christian faith. Even these people argue over and try to find the grey in. The answer, I believe, is white, but even our best attempts to be white end up a little off-white, if you will. There will be no perfection on earth. But even so, we should not deliberately go around trying to find black to mix into our off-white to turn it grey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)