Talking with God

Over the past week or two, I have had a continuous conversation with God. This has been a fascinating experience…I have thought before about the reality of God and how often we fail to realize it, but it has been a while since I have had time where I intentionally submit myself to God and his unfathomable power. We’ve talked mostly about my future, and what God has in store, but about other things too. Sometimes I get nostalgic about periods of history that I never could have experienced, and in mentioning to God how cool it would be to see Grand Rapids 100 years ago, He said, “You wouldn’t recognize a thing…” to which I replied, “I know, but it would be cool!” God, in His infinite wisdom, has placed me here for a reason – in this city, in the year 2012, in this job, in my life. And no matter how hard I try to change it, God won’t let my plans deviate from His.

I was selected as a finalist for a dream job – a history position with potential for coaching soccer, teaching an AP class, and living in a new town right in the middle of Milwaukee and Grand Rapids – which the administrator recently informed me was being offered to the other candidate. This, frankly, sucked. I haven’t been so bummed about something since Michigan lost to Ohio State at the Horseshoe in 2006. But this rejection is pretty significant. Since looking for a better teaching job, God has given me several opportunities that have fallen through. Timeline….Spring of 2010: Top three finalist at a premier Christian school in St. Louis, rejected. Fall of 2010: Opening at the high school where I student taught and still have friends on staff, not qualified because my degree in History and Political Science is not a Social Studies degree. Spring of 2011: Another opening at the St. Louis school, not even given an interview. Spring of 2011: Top ten finalist at a local Christian school in Hudsonville, rejected. Now, spring of 2012: Top two finalist for an outstanding position in Chicago, rejected. Sometimes it feels like God is using me to thoroughly enjoy a satisfying game of Whack-a-Mole. It’s like he’s glued a dollar to the cement, or ran a current through the cookie jar (too sadistic?). But as easy as it is to be frustrated with how my own plans aren’t working out and wallow in self-pity, it has been made painfully clear that my plans are not what is best for me, or more importantly, my wife and me.

So this is what I’ve learned: God is saying one of two things. Either, “Keep working – you’re almost there. I’m letting you get your hopes up to keep your confidence up and have an awesome position for you,” OR “Keep working, just not in history! You think you want to be a history teacher, but I don’t want you to.” The hard part is figuring out what the message is. Or maybe, the hard part is learning to trust. Where do you draw the line between following God away from what you think your dream is, and giving up on it? How do you know what signs to follow and what signs are misleading? No one can answer these questions, but everyone does at some point. It’s just a matter of being patient and knowing how to let go of all of the wisdom I might think I have in favor of a nebulous plan laid out by a Being that I cannot see, but who knows me best and what is best for me.

So, even though what I saw as an open door ended up being a brick wall that I ran into at full speed, it was put there for a reason. God and I will laugh at this later, but right now it’s time to get up, walk away from the wall, and figure out what door God has actually opened.

How the TEA Party Reminds us that we need Government

I just heard on the radio – just now – a ‘speech’ that was given by a candidate running for a seat in the US House of Representatives. This speech was to announce the candidate’s intent to run for the seat, but in it he revealed some very important points not just in his platform, but in his political philosophy as well.

Holding up a light bulb, currently in the works for being outdated and outlawed in favor of new, more energy-efficient bulbs, Hoogendyk (the challenging candidate) asked his core of supporters if we need the government to tell us what kind of light bulb to use, or if we need the government to tell us how much water we can use when we flush our toilets. The crowd, although small, seemed to agree as Hoogendyk made the claim that “we need to return the government back to the people.”

I understand this libertarian ideology. Anyone who has listened to any of Ron Paul’s speeches understand at least how libertarianism can be applied to current political situations, but the problem with libertarianism in the United States is that it perpetuates an individualized, no-strings-attached style of everyday living even though we live in a community that is necessarily linked from person to person, city to city, state to state, coast to coast – you get it.

So what if the government didn’t regulate how much energy anyone used, or how much water someone used? What if there were no regulations on fuel mileage for automobiles or air and water quality standards? What if everyone lived life in their own best interest without any regard for the sustainability of the resources that they consume, much less without any regard for the best interest of those around them? Forgive my pessimism, but I don’t think we would get very far! I am sure that we, as Americans, can rely on the goodwill of others to a certain extent, but if self-centered consumption and an ethos of relativistic law creation and enforcement becomes the status quo our nation will be incapable of surviving as a powerful international state. We would be incapable as surviving as a state at all! As Abraham Lincoln famously observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and that was in reference to two largely homogenous geographical and ideological masses. If the citizens of the United States adhere only to their own self-interest in regard to energy and resource consumption, self-defense, controlled substance regulation (Ron Paul once told a crowd that we shouldn’t rely on the government to tell us that heroine is bad for us…), and statutory/criminal/civil law, our national house certainly cannot stand.

Philosophical libertarianism is a beautiful thing that is based on the ability of man to govern himself and benefit from the fruits of political freedom and autonomy. Unfortunately, as James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary…” and men are not angels. (To be fair, the very next sentence in Madison’s essay says, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…” which is a great argument for the libertarian.) So as good as libertarianism sounds especially in the face of big, left-leaning legislation that has been passed in the past 4 years, beginning with the bank bailouts under Bush, and continued by the stimulus package, more bailouts (GM), and health care legislation under Obama, we need to keep in mind that not all government is bad government, and although bigger may not seem better, it’s better than none at all.

The New Anti-Establishment

I just listened to a story on the radio about a Republican caucus in Iowa where all of the big names were giving speeches – Michele Bachmann talking about a preferred position for Right to Life-ers, Newt Gingrich talking about de-funding Planned Parenthood and using the money for adoptive services (like the rest of Gingrich, at least half of that is good!), Ron Paul blasting federal judges for their lifetime appointments, and Rick Santorum complaining about something. I thought that this had proved my point from an earlier post – that the pendulum has swung to the Left, and we are now witnessing an equal and opposite political reaction.

That being said, I really do not have much more to say. The pendulum swung to the Left after the Bush administration and ushered in the Obama era, but after the Bush-initiated bank bailouts, the stimulus bill of early 2009, and health care reform a year later, the Right side has been voicing their opinions. This we see in the Tea Party, the 2010 elections, the gridlock in Congress, and zany religious-righters in the likes of Michele Bachmann.

What struck me during the radio broadcast was just how hard the Right is swinging! These candidates were complaining about typical Conservative talking points – Right to Life, etc – but the talking points have turned into complaints, and the complaints have been framed in an Us vs. Them / antagonist vs. protagonist / good vs. evil type of scenario. The Right has effectively positioned the Left as the ruling party making the laws, and everything wrong with country (real or perceived) can be blamed on those that made it that way – in this case, the Left.

What it looks like from here is that no longer do we have political platforms with equally feasible political goals or reconcilable political philosophies. We live in a domestic political world where “compromise” is career-ending strategy and “calling for a truce” is ridiculed as if one party could get its way without it. Whereas the pendulum may have swung Left or Right in the past, it is being pushed much further – and much faster – in the present.

Obama Gets Osama

The biggest tactile accomplishment in the War on Terror thus far has been the assassination of Al Qaeda founder and front-man Osama bin Laden. It seems like his name has largely disappeared from the news (until Sunday), but we all still kind of painted his picture with horns and a pitchfork in our minds, and the celebration of his death at baseball games, at the White House, and on the site of Ground Zero has reaffirmed the associations Americans have with this man.

I think that the best description of this benchmark is "a symbolic victory." Bin Laden, as far as I know, has been largely a figurehead for the group and although once maintained a position of unspeakable power, he had retired to a state of image and motions, not one of power and action like he once held. The fact that the United States has removed bin Laden from any position is meaningful, since he still held an important figure in al Qaeda, but will do very little to disenfranchise any fighters in the group. To me, this killing is akin to an enemy of Great Britain assassinating the Queen. No one would expect the government to crumble, since the Queen's role is largely symbolic, and other than a period of mourning and outrage, not much would change. The Queen is a figurehead, has a minimal role in running the country (although the monarchy once ran the entire empire - noticing the parallels here?), and there are several others in line for the throne. The similarities are stunning. I do not think that Americans should hope for much change in the way al Qaeda functions, and if anyone has their fingers crossed for a disbandment of the terrorist organization now that bin Laden is out of the picture...well, don't hold your breath.

Another side of this killing is the highly-suspicious in which bin Laden was found. First of all, the people who lived there were strangers to the rest of the population of Abbotabad, where they were located. They never left, except, according to some citizens there, to go to there store where they got what they came for and made no contact otherwise. Even though they are model shoppers, if that is really the case, people had to have been suspicious. Never going outside and not talking to anyone when they are out are suspicious enough, and to add to that isolation, there was no kind of internet or television connections, and waste removal was forfeited in favor of burning all of their garbage. Super-weird. Oh, and I guess it is relevant to say that the distance between the bin Laden's compound and Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, is just barely farther than Hope is from Calvin.

This country claims to be an ally, definitely a recipient of a TON of aid money from our American federal government (over $4 billion per year), and now has been found housing bin Laden, despite their claims that they did not know he was there and was not protecting him. I find this incredibly difficult to believe, considering the location of the compound in relation to the capital, and the fact that Abbotabad is home to the Pakistani's version of West Point Military Academy. Bin Laden was literally right under the Pakistani military's nose for over five years, and they did not find him, despite the obvious signs of suspicious activity mentioned about. Some ally.

This is really a lose-lose for Pakistan. I compare them to a guy I worked with at Wisconsin Memorial Park who was about as accident-prone as they get. He kept getting in accidents with machinery, and was taken to be drug tested after each accident. This implies that either 1) Drugs had to have influenced his behavior, because no normal person would suffer the same injury sober, or 2) He was acting in such a stupid way that no normal person should suffer the same injury, except on drugs. Pakistan is stuck in this same pickle. Either they admit to have been hiding bin Laden while claiming to assist the US in the manhunt and fight against bin Laden's organization and their associates, or they are ignorant enough to have him hiding in broad daylight in the middle of a military establishment. No way to win. Either the Pakistani government is on drugs, or they acted in a manner that can only be explained by substance abuse.

This, of course, is said with all due respect to Pakistani authorities...who can perhaps pull the knife out of the White House's back if they get the time.

Toska

As I studied history in college, I would notice a strange phenomenon when studying periods of American history that I was particularly interested in: I would feel a dark nostalgia, a wish that I was a part of that era and a strange feeling that I really missed out on something in which I conceivably could have participated. I still get this feeling when I study the 1920s or the 1950s and read about the dynamic, tumultuous social scenes that shaped the American of the time. I have always interpreted this as a sure sign that I was the king of nerds in the history department, but as I grow older and find this feeling toward past periods of my own life, I think that maybe this feeling is a sign of something else – nostalgia for certain, but feelings like passion and interest as well.

As an example, the spring of 2010 was just a highlight of my existence. Although I was living 800 miles away from Nora, whom I had since decided was the one I was supposed to marry, other parts of life gave my life meaning and definition. I was living on my own in a city that was at the same time strange and my home, with people who were strangers yet my closest friends, at a time where I was young and learning but much wiser and more experienced in life than I ever had been before. I was learning how make it on my own, how to question and rethink long held beliefs, how to maintain old relationships and formulate new ones, and how to live as a young, independent man. There were, of course, definite challenges that appear in any period in one’s life, but it is not the negative I remember; only the positive moments that in a way still shape how I live today.

I learned a new Russian word the other day while reading an article in National Geographic magazine. The word, toskavat, means “to long for” and is derived from the noun toska, which is, according to the magazine, a dark nostalgia bordering on depression. When I think of time periods in my life that I am particularly drawn to, I experience this toska. It sometimes makes a physical impact; it is like the progression of time’s version of homesickness that makes me long for another place, another place in time.

I do not know why I get this feeling, or if others are plagued with this toska for the past. Logically, it makes no sense, considering my partiality toward this time period is inherently skewed with the faults of human memory, my opinion of this time period as favorable is arbitrary at best, and there is no way that I can possibly revisit this period in my life. I long for these times nonetheless and am affected by these feelings consistently, to the point that I take the time to write down my reflections.

I think one part of the gravity of these nostalgic waves is a guilt that I ended this time period prematurely. I voluntarily left the school where I taught, the apartment where I lived, and the bonds that I had formed with new friends, places, and routines. I could have stayed and could have continued the life that I loved so much, but chose to move back to Michigan and the routines that I had the very same feelings for while living in Frederick. Because I had gone through parts of my life that ended all too soon (or so it seemed), I knew that looking back at my time in Frederick, I would consider how strange it is that I once got up, drove to school, and taught five days out of the week. How strange that I maintained relationships with the people I played ultimate with twice per week, and how strange that I would happily make the hour drive down to Crystal City to spend time with my close friends there. I knew that I would feel the way I do now about my life then. And then, I had that same toska for the times of college, living with my roommates and going to classes. At the same time, I was so looking forward to moving back to Michigan, back to Nora, back to family, back to my old routines…

And this is where my train of thought ends. I must conclude that we (presumably – I know that I am, and can only assume that others are too) live our lives suspended in a web of a longing for the past and anticipation of the future. The present does not even really exist – we never really experience the present, as our thoughts are in the past and our plans are in the future – and we are thus never able to really enjoy it. We are left with the aftertaste of our experiences and a hunger for our arrangements, and no chance to really enjoy the digestion of where we are in the moment. It must be a delicate balance; to live in the past is not much of a life at all, but neither is a life built on intentions. I think that my toska for the past is an important part of appreciating my current situations and shaping my plans for the future, but to dwell on the past strips the present and future of all too much significance; almost making an unfair comparison to an idealized nostalgia that can never be matched in real time.

So it is difficult. It is a challenge. It is just hard to not wish one lived in the past as he remembers it, but it is so important to find that proportion of past and future that creates the present, and to make the limbo of time in which we hang balanced and tolerable. I may struggle more than others, but think it is important all the same to emphasize that the present is what we make of it, and any excess of past or future can make the present a meaningless unreality.

Putting the "Tea" in P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

If there is one thing that has influenced politics and the political news media in the past few years, it has been the Tea Party. This group of passionate right-wingers formed in response to increased government spending with the Stimulus Package in early 2008, and has been snowballing down the road to Washington ever since. We saw tangible results of their leaderless forces in the 2010 elections when dozens of Tea Party freshmen found their way into the Capitol building, and State governments found new leaders from the Tea Party's ranks. Now, as premature reports of the 2012 Presidential Elections float into media reports, Tea Party favorites such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are making their own political headlines.

These Tea Partiers are a noble bunch; they have their principles and they have their methods of making their principles known. They know how to work hard, have seen success, and have their scopes set on the White House come November, 2012. Not a day passes when the TP doesn't make headlines, and the members have effectively reserved a spot on the national scene in which to make their opinions known. But to me, the Tea Party's success is largely a function of media sensationalism, exaggerated political response and retaliation, and an American partiality toward entertaining, emotional, perpetual, bellicose political dispute.

If there is one thing that bothers me about the Tea Party, it is the emotional drive that empowers their speakers and speeches. I have a difficult time listening to a speech that calls for billions of dollars in budget cuts simply because the United States Government has spent too much for too long. Is what they say true? Has the US been spending too much? Of course they have! But has the government been spending indiscriminately? I don't think so. Surely there is a lot of wasteful spending (we all know the rumors about the $800 toilet seat), but cuts that have been proposed by the Tea Party hardly address these grocery store expenses that account for much of the wasteful spending they seek to eliminate. Paul Ryan, my own Wisconsin homeboy, proposed a landmark budget a couple of weeks ago, and although this proposal does not touch social security with a ten foot pole, it slashes MediCare to a voucher system, continues the system of tax breaks to the wealthy (perpetuating the assumption that trickle-down economics as the dominant fiscal policy will spur job growth and provide the market forces that will reboot the economy and help end the recession), and other drastic measures. I sincerely believe that Ryan's - is courageous the right word to use? - budget would not be able to make an appearance in any other political climate; that is, without the prolific support given to it by the Tea Partiers back on Capitol Hill and around the country.

This emotional impetus behind the Tea Party is visible behind almost every campaign speech and monologue that true Tea Party members give. They speak with great conviction, which is an admirable trait, and an ambition that could not be stopped with a team of wild horses. And this noble characteristic is what is wrong with the Tea Party. They have blind conviction and savage ambition. They have ideals and ideas to get them there, but they lack the kind of political sense that Congressional leaders - John Boehner included - so skillfully utilize when sculpting a platform. Boehner in particular is caught between a rock and a hard place, since he must represent the Republican party in general, and the dozens of Tea Partiers that are now included in the Republican's ranks. Boehner, plagued with a knack for political know-how, now has to compromise between the radical Right on the one hand, and the conventional Right on the other. The far right was elected to cut spending...or at least not spend as much as we were originally planning to spend...and the conventional right knows how to cut spending and still keep the government from shutting down. Boehner, stuck in the middle, has received praise from both sides of the aisle (except the far right) for how he has handled his new role as Speaker of the House and dealt with the dichotomous demands of the President and his House constituency.

Since the radical Right has entrenched themselves so deeply in their own fiscal (and increasingly social) ideology, it seems that the two sides of the House have to both give up a little in order to gain a little, but that is nowhere in the Tea Party's plan. They have no idea what the essence of compromise is. They think they are right, and they are not willing to budge. One Tea Partier, as heard on the news the other day, said something - and I paraphrase here - like, "This is more about being stubborn than it is about compromise..." Come on! Do you honestly think that's how things work in Washington? One would drown in his own political naivety if he thought that control of one half of one third of government means you can stand your ground with no compromise. And what about the Constitution that the TP flaunts with such hubris and sanguinity? The whole thing was based on compromise! The very Founding Fathers that the Tea Party claims to base their belief system on had very strong opinions and very noble ideals, but they had to compromise with others that disagreed in order to make the whole thing work. The angry go-getters in the House really show their political immaturity and lack of experience when they refuse to make simple compromises that would, in the long run, allow them to further their agendas.

In the sense that the Tea Party have strong convictions and lack the ability to compromise their ideas with political realities, they are almost precious. To hear the soundbites of middle-aged women from the breadbasket, old men from Florida, and leading TP figures talk about their ideas with such drive is just kind of cute! I understand that this description sounds pejorative; yet I just can't help but draw the parallel between Nikki Haley addressing a crowd with the line, "It's a great day for a Tea Party!" and a little boy telling his best friend that his dad is way stronger than his friend's. Plus, the connotations that are drawn between tea parties and little girls sitting down with their stuffed animals and little siblings only reinforce my own mental analogies.

So, Tea Party, here is my message - Good for you guys. You all are doing great. The thing is, your ideas are just that: ideas. Find a way to reconcile them with the predefined political structure, find a way to make them work within the preexisting political traditions, and you are golden. It's great that you have your ideas and your plans, but if things don't go your way, you can't just take your ball and go home - find a way to make them work!

For Ever Reading...

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote in a short essay, "For ever reading, never to be read!" This simple phrase has stuck withe me for at least the couple of months since I read the essay, but I think it has a lot to say. So much, in fact, that I decided not to read while I was waiting for my dinner to cook, but to write instead.

What that statement really is, is a challenge. It is a challenge to pursue activity and creativity, and to really see what one is made of. In my opinion, we live in a world of self-servitude, meaning we like to have things handed to us. We watch television because it hands us entertainment, we have the internet on our phones because it hands us information. Book reading, is different, though. To read a book, one must be able to sit down somewhere and take the time to actively read the words on the page. What is more, is that the reader must use his or her mind to actually make sense of what the words mean. I doubt that I would meet much opposition when I say that reading is an activity of the mind, and a worthy activity to consume our time, but Schopenhauer challenges us to take one step further.

The apostle Paul once said of spiritual gifts that they first ought to edify the entire congregation. Schopenhauer takes that point and applies to to education/knowledge/learning. Let's think about it: what good does it do to sit in a library and read all day (certainly more than sitting in front of a television, but keeping Schopenhauer's next step in mind...)? Not much. It does plenty of good for the reader, but on the other hand, does it? The reader, presumably, gathers a wealth of information and new, refreshing insights from his/her day of reading. Good. But is not application of that new knowledge what makes it count? Is not potential energy a mere concept, whereas kinetic energy actually does something? Is a faith without works not dead?

Reading definitely takes ambition and patience, but writing takes even more. To write something intelligent takes more than a creative mind. It takes an understanding of the way things work and an understanding of how to apply it. I just finished the book White Teeth by Zadie Smith. It was brilliant. She draws eloquent analogies, has a distinctive understanding of how several different cultures operate, and weaves different perspectives on numerous topics into her fiction. At the same time, she draws the reader in to enjoy a beautiful process of character development. It was a great read. I should rephrase that: It was a great write. Smith took an idea that she could have kept to herself and shared it with the world (it is on the New York Times bestseller list). She had ideas that were influenced by one thing or another. She read books that helped her develop her own writing style. She had a vision that would be a lot easier to develop in her head that take the time and money to write on paper. Still, she wrote it, and now more than just Zadie Smith is benefiting from her ideas.

The same is obviously true of nonfiction, my genre of choice. I am currently reading a book called Hamlet's Blackberry by William Powers, which explores the hyper-connectivity of the modern world. Powers made observations, formulated ideas and hypotheses, and did his fair share of researching to polish his idea in his own mind. What takes real ambition is authors' willingness to write. Let me repeat my own hypothesis - what good does it do to obtain all of this information and store it away? Nothing! Share it! Teach it! (Believe me, I would if I could find a teaching position!) Write it! Debate it! Let it grow! There is no worse sentence for the fruits of education than to let it rot away untouched.

Another point - if one does not share his or her thoughts through writing or some other medium, the thoughts will atrophy and disappear. Just as obtaining and absorbing and hording knowledge is a non-edifying way to use said information, not exercising it is just as bad. This is one of my greatest regrets. I value the intellectual conversations I might have these days because it gives me a chance to exercise what I have learned and use it in different situations. I wish I would have chosen do this in college. I wish that while the knowledge was still fresh in my mind, I would have had the good sense to put myself in challenging situations where I could use what I know to gain more knowledge. Sharing knowledge will always yield enormous returns. If one should choose to invest a certain amount of knowledge or learning in another class or individual who is willing to talk about it, no doubt that knowledge will return with a new spin or perspective. Just as Schopenhauer begs of intellectuals to share what they have learned, I would say that a dynamic conversation would also do the trick.

I think what Schopenhauer means when he laments, "For ever reading..." is this: Please make sure that the reader is not the only one benefiting from what has been read.