Patrick Pearse’s Legacy
I recall that when I was twelve years old in sixth class, I asked my teacher, Owen O’Sullivan, why Patrick Pearse was not canonized by the Catholic Church. I pointed out that he was a brave idealist who died as a martyr for his country. In addition, Pearse was a devout Catholic who drew his inspiration from Christ, who also died to save his people. What more, I wondered, did the man have to do to have his exemplary sanctity recognized by Rome?
Today, I view Pearse and his 1916 rebellion very differently. After the military debacle that is called “The Easter Rising,” the poet William Butler Yeats commented very presciently about the uprising in one of his poems when he wrote that “A Terrible Beauty is Born!” He correctly foresaw that Pearse’s blood sacrifice would motivate many idealistic young men and women to kill and be killed in the name of the idealized republic declared at the GPO.
Pearse had no popular mandate for his revolution. He was told by Eoin McNeill, his commander in the Irish Volunteers, not to go ahead with his plans for an armed uprising. However, he felt that he and his comrades were following a higher philosophy, striking a blow for Ireland that they hoped would raise the spirit of the people, who would then rebel and revolt en masse against the British.
Now, democratic principles were well established in Ireland by the beginning of the 20th century. By the end of the previous millenium, Daniel O’Connell and, especially, Charles Parnell, had achieved major political progress for Ireland in Westminster. They were able to move forward by using various astute parliamentary tactics in the London parliament and by maintaining a strong support base in successive elections throughout most of Ireland.
Agitation for land reform was central to the nationalist political agenda in the 19th century. Under Parnell, who was wholeheartedly supported by Michael Davitt, the dynamic leader of the Land League, major political progress was made in this area. In fact, after the passage of a number of reforms in Westminster, culminating with the Wyndham Act in 1903, nearly all the changes sought by Davitt were achieved. It should be stressed that these important reforms were achieved without resorting to violence.
The repeal of the Act of Union of 1801 was the other major goal of O’Connell and later, Parnell. The Irish Parliamentary Party used their power very astutely in Westminster to press their case for a Home Rule bill that would return political power to a Dublin parliament. Finally, they were successful, prior to the start of the First World War, but the government in Westminster postponed implementing the Irish Home Rule Bill until, what they called,the Great War was over.
The agitation for Home Rule was supported by nearly all Irish nationalists, including Patrick Pearse and the IRB. A parliament in Dublin, with limited power, was never seen as a final solution by Irish nationalists of any hue; rather, it was viewed as offering a major step towards full independence – what Michael Collins memorably called in the later Treaty debate “the freedom to achieve freedom.”
Protestants, who were very strong numerically in the province of Ulster, formed the Ulster Volunteers, whose sole objective was to reject any allegiance to a Dublin parliament. In their eyes Home Rule would be Rome Rule, and they would die to prevent that. So, Westminster moved reluctantly to set up two parliaments in Ireland, one in Dublin and one in Belfast.
Ironically, Pearse praised the determination and stubbornness of the Ulster loyalists for resisting by threatened force the imposition of the preferred British solution, one parliament in Dublin for the whole island. And, it should be noted that even the most extreme Republicans, including Pearse, never advocated imposing a united Ireland of any kind by confronting the Ulster Volunteers by force.
The events of Easter 1916 changed the dynamics of Irish politics. The executions by the British of so many brave and idealistic Irishmen after the Rising were largely responsible for swinging the country away from the Irish Parliamentary Party and into supporting the Sinn Fein Party, which did very well in the 1918 election.
I often wonder what would have happened if Pearse had obeyed McNeill’s command and called off the insurrection. It is very likely that Home Rule would have been implemented and that this, over time, with the demise of imperialism throughout the world, would have led to more and more freedom, ending up, almost inevitably, with the full measure which evolved in the South of Ireland about thirty years after Pearse’s death.
Surely, this scenario would have been preferable to the divisions, the killings and the mayhem that dominated Irish political history in the 20th century. The parliamentary approach, the constitutional road, that was followed so successfully in the 19th century could have served Ireland very well in the 20th century also. Was the birthing of Pearse’s “Terrible Beauty” in 1916 worth it?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
AFGHANISTAN
Readers of my blogs know that I am an avid supporter of President Obama. He has inherited an awful mess from his predecessor, whose presidency I view as a total disaster for America. Worst of all, he seemed to lack any ability to assess the serious consequences of his decisions. So, he justified his invasion of Iraq in a different way every week, and he blithely dismissed concerns about the huge budget deficit that his policies caused.
By comparison, watching President Obama explain and implement his policies is like a breath of fresh air in the body politic. The Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who is a holdover from the Bush Administration, explained over the weekend that while his previous boss showed little interest in detailed analysis before making a decision, the much more serious Obama approach invites in-depth assessment from all sides before he makes policy calls.
In this context, I am puzzled by the President’s approach to Afghanistan. He announced that he was making good on his campaign promise by committing an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, he has appointed a top team of military and diplomatic experts to come up with the best strategic policies that America should pursue in that region.
Mr. Obama stated a few days ago that he will make strategic decisions for the future after he receives the recommendations from this high-powered, important group. Why announce the movement of American forces in advance of their report? This unfortunate commitment of so many new troops only makes sense in terms of an increasing military commitment in Afghanistan.
What are the goals of the United States-led NATO presence in Afghanistan? We know that America’s number one enemy, Osama Bin Laden, is hiding somewhere in the vast mountain areas that span the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Special forces from the United States and its allies have been on an unsuccessful mission to find him for the last eight years, mainly because the terrain, mostly mountains and caves, is very inhospitable to Western troops. And, the people in the villages, who may know where he is, will not talk because of a combination of an historical hatred of Western invaders and a fear of harsh reprisal by Taliban or tribal leaders.
The Taliban were successfully ousted from power by Western forces, but they have gradually reasserted their authority over most of the country, outside of Kabul. The central government seems unable to establish its control, even with the help of US and other NATO forces.
American leaders are also very concerned about the huge supply of poppy, the basic source of opium and its derivative, heroin, that is grown in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Taliban, who derive most of their funds from the drug trade, have instructed the local farmers to expand their production of this profitable crop. And, there was a big increase in the poppy supply from the region in 2008.
The Taliban are fully supported by Al Qaeda forces in their war against the West. Bin Laden called for Muslims everywhere to treat the latest “invasion” in the same way the Russians were treated. In addition, thousands of nomadic Pashtun militiatemen have crossed over the mountains from Pakistan to support the war efforts of their co-religionists.
All these groups espouse a very narrow version of Islam. We read recently of the closure of girls’ schools in part of the area controlled by the Taliban. The poignant symbolism of cutting young girls off from learning how to read or write is surely as close to cultural nihilism as you will find anywhere.
Back to the basic question regarding what the United States and its allies are trying to achieve in this chaotic country. Sure, we want to defeat Al Qaeda and capture or kill Bin Laden, but why should we be successful now when our best efforts have failed since 2002? Will 17 thousand – or ten times that number – help us to meet that goal? Or will additional Western soldiers stiffen Taliban resistance even more as increases in Russian troops did twenty years ago? Will confronting Islamic extremism with sophisticated American weaponry inevitably lead to more terrorist actions against the West?
Western bombers control the air, but bombing “targets” in mountain villages has the serious downside of increasing the level of anger and hatred against the “American invaders!” A senior Russian diplomat, Mr. Ragozin, was quoted recently as saying about the war in Afghanistan: “They have repeated our mistakes, and they have made a mountain of their own.”
Will the Karzai government be able to hold credible elections this year, despite the Taliban insurgency? Can any elected government in Kabul extend its remit over all of its territory? Do tens of thousands of foreign troops help or hinder their chances of success?
Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said recently that the three D’s will guide US foreign policy all over the world – development, diplomacy and defense. Development funds are badly needed for education and health care in that area of the world, and behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, especially in the Muslim world, to enhance the legitimacy of the Kabul government could be very helpful and productive.
Under the third “D,” I think that there is a strong argument for limiting American military involvement to training, equipping, and advising the Kabul government’s army. There is a real danger that Afghanistan could become Obama’s Vietnam, a quagmire that he is dragged into because he didn’t get out on time – an unwinable war, that will drain America’s weak treasury, against opponents who play by their own rules.
By comparison, watching President Obama explain and implement his policies is like a breath of fresh air in the body politic. The Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who is a holdover from the Bush Administration, explained over the weekend that while his previous boss showed little interest in detailed analysis before making a decision, the much more serious Obama approach invites in-depth assessment from all sides before he makes policy calls.
In this context, I am puzzled by the President’s approach to Afghanistan. He announced that he was making good on his campaign promise by committing an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, he has appointed a top team of military and diplomatic experts to come up with the best strategic policies that America should pursue in that region.
Mr. Obama stated a few days ago that he will make strategic decisions for the future after he receives the recommendations from this high-powered, important group. Why announce the movement of American forces in advance of their report? This unfortunate commitment of so many new troops only makes sense in terms of an increasing military commitment in Afghanistan.
What are the goals of the United States-led NATO presence in Afghanistan? We know that America’s number one enemy, Osama Bin Laden, is hiding somewhere in the vast mountain areas that span the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Special forces from the United States and its allies have been on an unsuccessful mission to find him for the last eight years, mainly because the terrain, mostly mountains and caves, is very inhospitable to Western troops. And, the people in the villages, who may know where he is, will not talk because of a combination of an historical hatred of Western invaders and a fear of harsh reprisal by Taliban or tribal leaders.
The Taliban were successfully ousted from power by Western forces, but they have gradually reasserted their authority over most of the country, outside of Kabul. The central government seems unable to establish its control, even with the help of US and other NATO forces.
American leaders are also very concerned about the huge supply of poppy, the basic source of opium and its derivative, heroin, that is grown in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Taliban, who derive most of their funds from the drug trade, have instructed the local farmers to expand their production of this profitable crop. And, there was a big increase in the poppy supply from the region in 2008.
The Taliban are fully supported by Al Qaeda forces in their war against the West. Bin Laden called for Muslims everywhere to treat the latest “invasion” in the same way the Russians were treated. In addition, thousands of nomadic Pashtun militiatemen have crossed over the mountains from Pakistan to support the war efforts of their co-religionists.
All these groups espouse a very narrow version of Islam. We read recently of the closure of girls’ schools in part of the area controlled by the Taliban. The poignant symbolism of cutting young girls off from learning how to read or write is surely as close to cultural nihilism as you will find anywhere.
Back to the basic question regarding what the United States and its allies are trying to achieve in this chaotic country. Sure, we want to defeat Al Qaeda and capture or kill Bin Laden, but why should we be successful now when our best efforts have failed since 2002? Will 17 thousand – or ten times that number – help us to meet that goal? Or will additional Western soldiers stiffen Taliban resistance even more as increases in Russian troops did twenty years ago? Will confronting Islamic extremism with sophisticated American weaponry inevitably lead to more terrorist actions against the West?
Western bombers control the air, but bombing “targets” in mountain villages has the serious downside of increasing the level of anger and hatred against the “American invaders!” A senior Russian diplomat, Mr. Ragozin, was quoted recently as saying about the war in Afghanistan: “They have repeated our mistakes, and they have made a mountain of their own.”
Will the Karzai government be able to hold credible elections this year, despite the Taliban insurgency? Can any elected government in Kabul extend its remit over all of its territory? Do tens of thousands of foreign troops help or hinder their chances of success?
Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said recently that the three D’s will guide US foreign policy all over the world – development, diplomacy and defense. Development funds are badly needed for education and health care in that area of the world, and behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, especially in the Muslim world, to enhance the legitimacy of the Kabul government could be very helpful and productive.
Under the third “D,” I think that there is a strong argument for limiting American military involvement to training, equipping, and advising the Kabul government’s army. There is a real danger that Afghanistan could become Obama’s Vietnam, a quagmire that he is dragged into because he didn’t get out on time – an unwinable war, that will drain America’s weak treasury, against opponents who play by their own rules.
Friday, February 27, 2009
ASH WEDNESDAY
I will always associate Ash Wednesday with the Latin expression “Memento Homo.” In the days before Vatican Two, all the Catholic Church rituals were conducted in Latin so we heard the Lenten admonition in a language that very few understood: Memento homo quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris – Remember, man, that dust thou art and into dust you will return!
The Ash Wednesday ceremony deals with the most basic human reality – we are all mortal; we are only around for a short time. This is not particularly a Christian insight because dealing with the inevitability of death, finding some sustaining perspective on human mortality, is part of the challenge of every culture and religion.
Throughout history, moralists and preachers have correctly seen death as the great leveler. James Shirley, an English writer who lived at the end of the sixteenth century, wrote a very powerful poem entitled Death the Leveler, which I learned by heart in high school. It starts: The glories of our blood and state/ Are shadows not substantial things;/ There is no armour against fate;/ Death lays his icy hands on kings./ Sceptre and crown/Must tumble down,/And in the dust be equal made/ With the poor crooked scythe and spade.
Modern Western culture is overwhelmingly materialistic. Money and the power that goes with it often lead to a state of near-denial of mortality. Happiness is tied to possessions, to the new car or boat, to the new home or homes that bring status and importance. There is surely a materialistic fallacy here because human contentment does not correlate with the amount of possessions we hold.
This is the big letdown of the modern acquisitive culture which often confuses our basic needs with our many “wants.” The Catholic ritual for Ash Wednesday reminds us of what, in a different context, a friend from Tyrone loved to call “the cold hard facts of life.” We are invited to see life from the perspective of eternity, to put aside the pomp and posturing, to drop our pretensions, to recognize the many masks we wear and to deal with the core issues of our humanity.
Penance is part of the Christian Lenten regimen. So, in my youth, a common question was “what are you giving up for Lent?” When I meet older Irish people who do not take sugar in their tea, I know that this has nothing to do with any anti-carb craze, but with a Lenten resolution from another era.
I gave up cigarettes once for Lent. I recall waiting patiently for Easter Sunday morning when I could again enjoy a drag from a Sweet Afton. I missed the “fags” so much for those forty days, that I never again attempted that Lenten penance, and, when I finally did quit, my decision was driven entirely by health considerations.
Giving-up the cigarettes or the booze for six weeks is a healthy practice that stresses the importance of self-control and builds character. However, in our present economic crisis, asking people who have lost their jobs and, maybe their homes to do without some luxury or other is a bit out-of-touch. So many people - and, especially, families, - are living on the edge that giving-up anything else is not on their agenda.
Many ethicists and preachers suggest that we should eschew the negative approach of doing without; instead, they say, the stress, during Lent, should be on performing charitable works. For instance, thousands of children die from starvation every day, a disgraceful and damning comment on our 21st century culture. The important challenge, from this perspective, surely is to work with and support such charities as CONCERN, GOAL or HOPe in their efforts to alleviate the terrible situation for children in Third-world countries.
I am reminded of the last lines in Shirley’s poem which stress this positive approach: Only the actions of the just/ Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust.
The Ash Wednesday ceremony deals with the most basic human reality – we are all mortal; we are only around for a short time. This is not particularly a Christian insight because dealing with the inevitability of death, finding some sustaining perspective on human mortality, is part of the challenge of every culture and religion.
Throughout history, moralists and preachers have correctly seen death as the great leveler. James Shirley, an English writer who lived at the end of the sixteenth century, wrote a very powerful poem entitled Death the Leveler, which I learned by heart in high school. It starts: The glories of our blood and state/ Are shadows not substantial things;/ There is no armour against fate;/ Death lays his icy hands on kings./ Sceptre and crown/Must tumble down,/And in the dust be equal made/ With the poor crooked scythe and spade.
Modern Western culture is overwhelmingly materialistic. Money and the power that goes with it often lead to a state of near-denial of mortality. Happiness is tied to possessions, to the new car or boat, to the new home or homes that bring status and importance. There is surely a materialistic fallacy here because human contentment does not correlate with the amount of possessions we hold.
This is the big letdown of the modern acquisitive culture which often confuses our basic needs with our many “wants.” The Catholic ritual for Ash Wednesday reminds us of what, in a different context, a friend from Tyrone loved to call “the cold hard facts of life.” We are invited to see life from the perspective of eternity, to put aside the pomp and posturing, to drop our pretensions, to recognize the many masks we wear and to deal with the core issues of our humanity.
Penance is part of the Christian Lenten regimen. So, in my youth, a common question was “what are you giving up for Lent?” When I meet older Irish people who do not take sugar in their tea, I know that this has nothing to do with any anti-carb craze, but with a Lenten resolution from another era.
I gave up cigarettes once for Lent. I recall waiting patiently for Easter Sunday morning when I could again enjoy a drag from a Sweet Afton. I missed the “fags” so much for those forty days, that I never again attempted that Lenten penance, and, when I finally did quit, my decision was driven entirely by health considerations.
Giving-up the cigarettes or the booze for six weeks is a healthy practice that stresses the importance of self-control and builds character. However, in our present economic crisis, asking people who have lost their jobs and, maybe their homes to do without some luxury or other is a bit out-of-touch. So many people - and, especially, families, - are living on the edge that giving-up anything else is not on their agenda.
Many ethicists and preachers suggest that we should eschew the negative approach of doing without; instead, they say, the stress, during Lent, should be on performing charitable works. For instance, thousands of children die from starvation every day, a disgraceful and damning comment on our 21st century culture. The important challenge, from this perspective, surely is to work with and support such charities as CONCERN, GOAL or HOPe in their efforts to alleviate the terrible situation for children in Third-world countries.
I am reminded of the last lines in Shirley’s poem which stress this positive approach: Only the actions of the just/ Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
DARWIN
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Saturday, February 14, 2009
ADOLESCENT NEEDS
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
CONSERVATIVE DISARRAY
The massive 825 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives without one Republican vote. The Senate is now considering a similar bill that, at best, will be supported by a small number of Senate Republicans.
President Obama campaigned on the importance of bipartisan politics, stressing that the economic crisis had to be faced, without regard to ideology or preconceived policy dictates from the right or the left. We were all invited to pull together in the face of the worst economic news since the Great Depression. The new President met for hours with the House Republican leaders. They said that they found him very interested and respectful of their views, and then they voted en masse against his proposals.
They accused their Democratic opponents of pushing a Big Government agenda, spending huge sums in new programs in education, healthcare and infrastructure – a quintessentially liberal response to the crisis. Instead, they advocated for tax cuts for businesses and individuals. They also said that they could not justify the massive borrowing that the Democratic plans entailed.
The Republicans have a major problem in putting forward conservative solutions. They will, surely, hear the advice often given to people whose ideas are not consistent with the way they live: Talk louder because your actions are shouting you down!
George Bush came into office in January, 2001, promising limited government, low taxes and fiscally responsible policies. For six of his eight years in the White House, he had a Republican majority in the House and the Senate. They invited us to watch conservatives in action!
Well, we did. They inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton, but when President Obama took over eight years later, he found a projected deficit of a trillion dollars, not only for 2009, but for every year until 2018! President Bush cut taxes, especially for the rich, promising that, by some magic, this would result in continuing surpluses every year. Contrary to his promises, he also increased spending in nearly every government department from 2001 until he left office. Furthermore, he invaded Iraq and borrowed the hundreds of billions required to fight that war.
The Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed him all the way. The one absolute rule with present-day Republicans is that taxes must never – ever – be increased. They regularly attack their opponents as “tax and spend” Democrats.
Big deficits mean that future generations will have to pay for this Republican profligacy – the very antithesis of the conservative philosophy. Serious Republican theorists of the past, like the late William F. Buckley, would have considered leaving big bills for our grandchildren to pay as completely reckless and definitely un-conservative.
So, today, when the Republican leaders in both Houses trot out the old shibboleths about cutting taxes and reducing spending as a way out of the present crisis, they have a real credibility problem. Democrats are correctly pointing out that it was the so-called conservative Bush policies that got us into the mess in the first place.
Not that voters have embraced the liberal alternative. Indeed, it was very noticeable that the main contenders for the Democratic nomination, including Barack Obama, never identified themselves as liberals. It seems to be a noxious word that voters associate with soft-headed do-gooders who have a government solution for everything.
Democrats have learned to talk about the issues that concern people everywhere – healthcare, employment, education and retirement benefits. Their approach in all these issues is indeed a liberal one, involving hefty government involvement, but please don’t use that “L” word.
The Obama/Democratic proposals surely constitute a liberal response to the present economic crisis. The focus is on creating millions of jobs and enhancing the country’s infrastructure, which, they argue, will improve the chances of long-term, sustainable economic growth.
If the Democratic plans succeed, then we can look to a long period of that party in government. If they don’t turn the economy around, the people will reject the liberal approach, as they now reject conservative thinking.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
BLAGOJEVICH'S TRIALS
At the start of the Illinois Senate hearings, on Monday, about the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich, the presiding judge, Thomas R. Fitzgerald, asked the senators in the chamber, “Is the Governor present?” The answer was negative, because Blago, as he is now commonly called, dubbed the senate gathering a kangaroo court, motivated by political vendettas.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
