cogitation_station

Need a Good Book? Try "Winter's Tale" by Mark Helprin

Mark Helprin's Winter's Tale, published 1983 by Harcourt, Inc.--yes, 1983!--deserves the title Masterpiece. That's a word I rarely use.

In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens became, arguably, the reigning English language author in Literature. In the 20th and 21st Centuries, Helprin became our Dickens. Argue with me if you will; I stand by my statement. But this is not intended to be a review.

So much of Helprin's work is quotable and read-out-loud-please great that to pick one passage becomes a challenge of mammoth proportions. However, given our current state of government affairs here in the United States, his message in this particular book is too pertinent to dismiss. I've chosen a few paragraphs to quote this morning.

Peter Lake, the protagonist of the novel, tries to retrace his first experience of New York City twenty years earlier near the turn of the 20th Century. At that time, Peter Lake saw a very young child, dying, alone in the hallway of an abandoned tenement. The sight haunted him so that he has returned to the site to find out what happened to the child--so damaged that he cannot tell you if it were boy or girl. His search leads him to the morgue of the hospital in Printing House Square and the doctor who performs autopsies on the dead, the nameless unclaimed poor of New York City. It is the doctor who speaks here:

"...'Maybe you're from some reform group, and you've come to gather evidence.' He glanced at Peter Lake and concluded from his expression and appearance that he was not. 'They come down here to snap pictures. They get a thrill here--that's why they come. They take stupendous joy in the indignation and compassion they feel on account of these mangled stiffs; it's their roller coaster. I know this,' he said, making a tragic incision across the abdomen of an adolescent girl, 'and I'll tell you why. Since I'm here all the time and take apart fifty of these things a day, I can't feel for each and every one of them. I'm not God. I don't have that much in me. The ladies' aides and the social critics sense immediately that I couldn't give a goddamn about all this inedible meat, and that's just what they want. They know they're better than the miserable bastards they try to help, but they really enjoy thinking that they're better than the rest of us, who aren't as "compassionate" as they are.' He turned to Peter Lake again, and said, 'You notice how often that very word escapes their lips? They use it like a cudgel. Beware.'

"What he did next, as a matter of routine, made Peter Lake close his eyes in horror. But the doctor continued, his hands glistening, as if nothing had happened. 'They come down here for their own benefit. It's as clear as day that they love it. The great irony and perfect joke is that the wretches on the bottom of the barrel get these self-serving scum as champions. Some champions! They feed off the poor--first materially, and then in spirit. But they deserve each other in a way, because vice and stupidity were made to go together.

"'I know this, you see, because I was poor. But I rose like a rocket, and I know how the whole thing works. The ones who are always on your side, or so they think, are the ones who keep you down. Everything they do keeps you down. They'll forgive you for anything. Rob, rape, pillage, and kill, and they'll defend you to yourself. They understand all outrages, and all your failings and faults, too. Perfect! You can go on that way forever. What do they care? Excuse me: they do care. They want it that way.'

"He bent over to make a short cut, as thin as a hair, across the chest of the emaciated blond girl that he had just eviscerated. 'How would they make a living, these servants of the poor, if there were no poor?

"'What enabled me to rise above all the people who don't know enough to come in out of the rain is that one day I looked face to face at a man who hated half of everything I was and had the courage to tell me so. I remember his very words. He said, '"What you're doing is hideous--a perfect way to die young. Unless you want to live sweetly only in the hereafter, you ought to learn how to do the right thing."' The doctor stopped what he was doing, dropped his hand to his sides, and looked directly at Peter Lake. 'I hate the poor. Look what they do to themselves. How could you not hate them, unless you thought that they should be like this.'"

This is an excerpt--a minor one in view of the enormous scope of this 748-page novel--from Winter's Tale and an example of the social commentary both Helprin and Dickens write. But the book is not pedantic; far from it. The novel is a beautifully realized love story about New York, human beings and their various conditions and characters, a white horse, and infinity.

Characters are richly drawn as are descriptions which refuse to be skipped over and ignored. Discription as a word pales beside the richness of Helprin's similes, language, color, olfactory teases or assaults. He is incapable of imprecision, whether dialogue, action, description or characterization. His humor is subtle, but at times you find yourself laughing out loud.

I usually refrain from superlatives even when discussing superlative authors. There are many writers I admire and recommend. But I use the word "genius" sparingly; Mark Helprin is a story-telling genius. Fortunately for his readers, Winter's Tale is just one of many beautifully told and compelling works. I urge you to read Mark Helprin. His writing informs and invites our generation to change for the better; I hope his message does not go unheeded in this time of "change" for the much, much worse.

Why They Can't Understand

I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm watching politicians who are trying to reach a meeting of the minds on something, I find myself screaming at the TV or tensing so I don't throw something at the tube.

Why? Because, as you probably already know, they cannot reach any kind of agreement or concensus because they haven't defined their terms. This seems a basic preliminary step to me, but 1) either they are unaware that differing definitions cause major communication problems, or 2) they know and don't care.

They posture, babble, and either quote from their favorite "hometown story," or cite well-researched facts and figures to colleagues who yawn and chat like high school students to their neighbors, oblivious to the C-Span cameras which catalog their disdain and lack of etiquette.

Yes, I'm talking about Thursday's televised presidential "health care summit." But Thursday's fiasco is no different from all the rest.

This "summit" purports a new and different approach in this administration--bipartisanship. Of course, as with all King Obama's court audiences,this one failed to achieve its goal.

Once more the American public watched, waiting for something to happen to change the dynamics in Washington. Nothing happened. Nothing that is unless you were listening to their actual words and watching their actions.

Once upon a time words had meanings. Most literate people knew them and shared a common vocabulary. Now lexicons of ideology have replaced the dictionary of the English language, and new set of professional politicians have replaced the "statesmen" of my youth. These place party above the people they were elected to represent and seemingly leave all independent thinking and ideas of service at the airport in Washington,D.C..

When did "public service" become "career politician"?

When did "reform" translate as "replacement"? When did "Republican" translate as "obstructionist" and "the party of no"?

When did "unconstitutional" become "constitutional" when practiced or proposed by the administration or his party?

When did "abortion" come to mean "choice"? When did "choices" become "rights"?

When did "health care coverage" for everyone become a "right"?

When did "human rights" trump "individual rights" and our Bill of Rights?

When did "President of the United States of America" become "the-person-who-is-much-smarter-than-you-("you" translates as "anyone who disagrees with POTUS")-and-who-will-try-to-defeat-you-at-any-cost-should-you-continue-in-your-ignorance"?

When did "summit" overtake "meeting" or "conference" as the preferred terminology? When did "transparent" replace the definitions of "opaque" and "secretive"?

"Arrogance" equals "tolerance". Once referred to as "disrepect," the "grin-and-call-you- by-your-first-name-in-a-national-forum" approach to peers is viewed as "acceptable" and "friendly" when practiced by POTUS.

The "exactitude" of basic math becomes "suspect" when applied to figures that contradict POTUS or his favorites among the courtiers.

"Federal budget" becomes "my money." The unpopular term "tax" dies and resurrects as "your fair share".

"Tax cuts" become "tax breaks for the very wealthy", as if only the wealthy benefit when tax rates fall.

The devil either no longer exists or shows himself as anything President Bush may have done since his birth.

"Christianity" is a bad word, as is "Christian". (Members of other religions are considered sacrosanct.)

"Tea Party" means "rednecks, radicals, and renegades assembled in one place."

"My administration" now means "anything-that-we-construe-as-good". Former "conservative administrations" are either defined as "precedents-for-actions-that-we-now-want-to-adopt-to-further-our-agenda" or "the roots of all evils."

"Talking points" is pejorative when used of the opposing party, but is used as "obvious factual statements" when practiced by your own.

"Threat" becomes the kinder, gentler "challenge."

When did "executive branch" branch out to include "legislative"? Can "judicial" be far behind? (I am reminded of the State of the Union address when the president rebuked the Supreme Court for their ruling in a particular case.)

The question arises: if this president has no regard for the electorate and no fear of the upcoming election, does he intend to do away with the 2010 election or influence it in some way? (I only raise this, because I have never seen such lack of regard for constituencies' wishes when an election is a few short months away. If I misunderstand,I'm sorry.)

I might ask, if I were the sort to ponder such things, which I'm not: When did "Obama" become synonymous with "leadership"? When did unelected cronies--many of whom are known radicals--reach the status of "czars"?

When did our soldiers and intelligence-gathering communities become enemies? (Perhaps it is that their name highlights the absence of any "intelligence" worth gathering in the halls of the current federal government?)

When did this "republic" short-change its people and replace it with whatever it is now. Whatever it is now, it is most certainly NOT acting or speaking as a republic.

When people speak different languages and use the same words to mean opposite things, can any truth or public good be reached? Of course not!

When one group convinces itself that all other groups are wrong and unqualified to lead, then no idea, no action on the part of those lying outside that group can or will be viewed as positive or constructive.

And so it proved.

No movement happened in either direction: the conservatives presented their ideas and objections to the current bills under consideration. The liberal spokespeople countered with their usual "everyone-but-Republicans-want-this" statements coupled with their assertions that if they could just get their bill/bills signed into law, then the deficit would disappear and everyone in America would have health care comparable to the plans the Congress and President enjoy.

(My only problem with this last point is that no one in the Washington power group wants to trade their health care programs for the so-called "reform" health care! I wonder why if their ideas are so great?)

Obama played to the cameras, attempted to look both engaged and engaging, and interjected his own opinions. When lunchtime approached, King Obama chided those with whom he disagreed that they were taking too much time with their remarks. (I suppose he was hungry.)

Though obsessed with time-keeping, Obama failed to notice that his own remarks took more time than was given to either party for the entire meeting. (Thank God that Obama refrains from hosting the Oscars!)

Of course being King Obama, this "summit" finished with a not-so-veiled threat, sorry, "challenge" that the House and Senate would simply pass health care without opposition support.

This measure of the elected few over-riding the wishes of the electorate many is called "reconciliation"--a misnomer if ever there was one.

So ended the bipartisan spirit of this meeting and, perhaps, of this era, which leads me to ask one final question: When did "black" become "white"?

Saints & Others

I've been trying to be silent, and I've done pretty well, but it's time to lay my cards on the table and discuss "The Saints."

The Old Testament word "saint," "qaddish" in Hebrew, only appears nine times in plural and singular form, but the word translates as: "holy," "holy one," "holy ones," and "saints." The New Testament word "saint" appears in Greek as "hagios" from the root word "hagos," and since my keyboard will not deliver either Hebrew or Greek script, you'll have to look it up.

"Hagios" translates into the following: "holy" (61); "Holy" (92); "Holy of Holies" (1); "Holy One" 5); "holy ones" (1); "holy place" (7); "most holy" (1); "saint" (1); "saints" (59); "saints" (1); "sanctuary" (2), and "who is holy" (1). (Source: New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Hebrew -- Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. I have other more exhaustive word study books, but this will suffice for now.)

What do all these languages and definitions have in common? The word or function of being "holy" translates into something or someone being "holy" or used for "holy" purposes, and that it applies both to supernatural beings and men. So we need to understand what being "holy" actually means.

For our purposes (for there are other words in Hebrew which have different meanings), we shall take the Hebrew word "qodesh" (from an unused word which means "apartness," "sacredness):"---"consecrated" (2); "consecrated thing" (1); "consecrated things" (2); "dedicated" ( this applies to dedicated gifts and things); "holies" (6); "holiness" (13); "Holiness" (1); "holy" (286); "Holy" (6); "holy ones" (1)--and this applies to:" portion" (3); "holy thing" or "things:" "most holy place" (6); "most holy things" (6); "sacred" as in "gifts" (2); "things" (3); "sacrifices" and "sacrificial" (both 1); "sanctuary" (65), "set apart," (1); "things that are most holy" (1); and "things dedicated."

So let's see how the Greeks used the word "holy." Strangely enough it is the same word used for "saint" in the New Testament, with the exception of eight other times, all of which use only two other words.

So, what is a "saint" then? A saint is someone, living or spiritually translated or already existing in that form, who is dedicated, consecrated, set apart to a holy purpose. These terms also apply to things as well.

So where have they been canonized? What made them "saints?" You need only to begin reading the introductions to many of Paul's Epistles:

To the Romans: "...among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints: Grace to you and peace... (1: 6, 7); to the 1 Corinthians: "...to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours..." (I Cor. 1:2); to the Ephesians: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus..." (Eph. 1:1); to the Philippians: "Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons"..."in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now." (Phil 1: 1 & 5); to the Colossians: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ in the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae:..." ( Col. 1: 1, 2); to the Thessalonians: "...when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed." (2 Thes: 1: 10).

The Epistles of Peter also echo Paul's teaching: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who reside as aliens, scattered ...who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His Blood.." (1 Pet. 1, 2); "Simon Peter, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a father of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ..." (2 Peter 1: 1)

I could continue, but I'm certain you've noticed five things: 1) that the apostles did not think themselves above others who believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ; 2) that they called these people "saints," 3) that belief/faith in Jesus Christ was the determining factor between saints and others; (4) that "sanctification" is through the on-going work of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life...all believers; 5) that Mary was never mentioned. (You can read the whole of the Epistles.)

So what is a "saint?" A saint is any person who has believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Scriptures (read John 3: 16, if you don't know what this is). That's it. They are considered "holy;" "consecrated" by the blood of Christ; "set apart" to the work of the gospel which God gives to all who believe.

What is that work? It differs for everyone. But the one constant is that in so doing whatever is given you to do that you try, through the help of the Holy Spirit, to do it according to the will of God and looking for your example to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who intercedes for you daily and has sat down at the right hand of God the Father. (Good News: you don't have to speak in tongues, perform miracles, or interpret tongues to be a saint!)

Please note: Mary is not a perpetual virgin. Read the gospels: Jesus had other brothers and sisters, one of whom wrote the Epistle of James and became head of the Christian church in Jerusalem. Mary is not mentioned after brief and sporadic mentions in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

A Pope is never mentioned. In fact there is a condemnation of those "who would forbid marriage." And besides our earthly parent, we are to call no man "Father," for God the Father, Who is in Heaven, is our Father.

Intercession for sins is accomplished by Jesus Christ, no other, with the one exception of the Holy Spirit who sometimes intercedes for us in prayer "with groanings too deep for words," when we are at a loss as to what or how to pray.

Men do not make "saints," nor can acts of a "saintly" nature make non-believers saints, nor believers for that matter. Men become saints through belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are "set apart" for "holy" purposes.

I've watched the near deification of the deceased John Paul II with a mixture of sadness and incredulity. A worshipper of both Jesus Christ and "the Perpetual Virgin Mary," who made over 400 saints, and who is now looked upon as a "Saint," is the same man who after being shot believed that "Mary of Fatima" saved his life. He may have been a great man; he may have been, at some level, a real follower of Jesus Christ, in which case he was already a saint, but his teachings and beliefs were so full of errors, only God can sort them out. So I do not presume to condemn him; but neither will I call upon him "to intercede" for me in Heaven.

Over a billion people in this world believe in these things. Have you never read the Bible in which you profess? All I can do is plead with you to do so. Martin Luther did and was appalled enough to separate himself from the Roman Catholic Church, even under the threat of excommunication, which in truth cannot affect the salvation of any man, woman, or child who has believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior (c.f., John 10: 27-30.) The errors of the Roman Catholic church teachings are myriad, flying in the face of the teaching of the apostles ("sent ones") and of Peter himself.

I am not asking you to believe my witness, though it is true. I'm asking for you to read the Bible (I recommend the New American Standard Version because it has the most literal translation of the original languages) and forget any additions which the Roman Catholics have included calling it "The Apocrypha," which in Greek means "hidden things." You might be interested in reading up on "Gnosticism" as well.

Then form your own opinions on the things you have been taught or read or heard.

God will bless you for it.

On Death And Dying

I have no idea why I've never had any fear of dying, but I haven't. I'm afraid of other things, but not Death. (And for several years, I should have been.)

Why am I writing about Death now? It's been so much in the news lately, e.g., Schiavo, the Tsunami, earthquakes, deluges, disease, and now the Pope finds himself at the door.

As an inveterate People Watcher, I've been astounded at the reactions, some of which I've explored in depth here.

Last night I watched cable news coverage of the Vatican "Death Watch." People praying for Pope John Paul II's recovery, some referring to a recovery as a "resurrection," some sorrowful, and some, taking their cue from John Paul, resting in their faith in God "serene" and looking ahead "with joy."

Grief at the loss of a loved one, while natural and understood, pertains not to the end of a person's earthly life, per se, but to the loss of being able to hold, touch, talk to that person who has moved on. The grief is not for the end of the loved one's suffering, but for our own loss of communication with that person.

Death seems especially horrible when a young person is involved. When this happens, as it has in my family, I remember Isaiah's words:

The righteous man perishes, and no one takes it to heart; and devout men are taken away, whle no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from evil. He enters into peace. Each one who walked in his upright way. -- Isaiah 57: 1-2.

Who would not wish for their loved ones to escape from all evil? It is not the manner in which I would like it to occur, but then, I am selfish and would prefer to see the faces and be able to hug those I love.

I shall leave you with one sonnet, "Death Be Not Proud," in John Donne's collection of what are known as the "Holy Sonnets."

Death be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadul, for thou are not so;

For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow

Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,

Much pleasure; then from these much more must flow,

And soonest our best men with thee do go,

Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.

Thou'rt slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,

And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;

And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well

And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?

One short sleep past, we wake eternally,

And death shall be no more: Death thou shalt die.

--Holy Sonnet X

And isn't that what Easter is all about?

Writing Journals

I just added a new blog site to my list of good blogs, "Writelife." It's written by a Canadian whom I felt a kinship with, even though I have nothing but his picture and his words to guide me.

He wrote an interesting blog on journal writing and on the DVD "Finding Neverland." Curiously Barrie always kept a journal, and I can't remember when I started writing journals, but I agree that it is a necessary outlet and "flashes-of-genius-keeper" for any writer.

I also like his idea of a real journal...the paper kind on which you write with a curiously archaic object, known as a pen. Nothing like it, really.

When I taught at the University of Oklahoma back in the Dark Ages, I became friends with a young man from France, who held dual citizenship in both that country and England. He was at OU teaching French in lieu of paying tuition. As it happens, he had to take my class (poor thing).

Most English teachers tell student to keep a journal and then hand out grades. I had a bit of a twist, because no one wants to really write personal things--the things that matter--in a journal which someone else might read or even grade. Result: Journals as assignments are useless. However, since I had been forced to write in one myself, and resented every minute of it, I decided that the students had to write in the journal every day, but that I promised I wouldn't read a word, unless they put a note on the front of their journal saying "Please Read." Everyone who kept a journal got an A.

Well, the young French teacher found it particularly cathartic. Journals are therapists, too. He found that because I didn't read it (and I never did), he could actually talk to his journal about his deepest concerns, ideas, etc. It freed him. When he told me about the drastic improvement his life had made since keeping a journal, I was not surprised.

Writing automatically objectifies the subjective. If something is really bothering you, get it on paper. It's amazing. By the act of writing it, you release it from your brain to free yourself to look at the thought from an "outsider's" Point Of View (POV). It's even more useful for evaluation if you leave it for a few days and then come back and read what you've written.

Regardless of the problem or conundrum, it's out of your head, screaming to be heard, and set down in ink. Black and white LOL. Or, if you're like me, you can write in colored inks according to your mood.

Try it, you'll like it. And while you're at it, if you can find a copy, you might want to try reading a very short wonderful book by Brenda Ueland entitled, If You Want To Write. The copy I have is from Graywolf Press, Saint Paul, MN, Second Edition 1987, so you might have to look. It's a little nugget like Strunk & White's Elements of Style.

A bit short tonight, I know, but I have to go write in my journal.

So You Want To Know Who I Am?

I have recently noticed that many people have been looking for "Pam Hawkins," and have ended up here.

To those of you who landed by mistake, thank you for visiting, and I'm sorry I'm not the Pam Hawkins you're looking for.

If I am, you can read more about me on the "About" page, or read my blogs. I am what you read...at least, most of the time.

It's easier to "google" me if you use Pamela Hawkins, Pamela K. Hawkins, or Pamela Kay Hawkins. I am everywhere. Truly sorry about that.

I am known by other names, but those are for me to know...:-).

(A little levity lightens the load, sometimes; don't you think?)

This Is Important, People

An end in sight? With the Schindlers who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court has once more refused to rule in the Schiavo's case, meaning the lower court rulings stand.

I have to say I am concerned about the smelly, lake bottom this furor has turned up.

This is the first time in my life when I find myself siding with Democrats. I'm a life-long Republican, as you know by now, and I'm sorry, but the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania sounded more like a Democrat than a Republican.

Since when does the federal government determine and intervene in a civil case affecting one person's life? Since when does the Congress ignore the Constitution and insist on "a de novo case," meaning go back and start over in the federal courts and ignore 15 years of litigation and medical evidence?

The rapidity and urgency of the Schiavo case nullified any possible Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the legislation. A fact that seems to escape most people, and which seems not to matter much to the rest.

It matters.

I've said things are upside down and topsy-turvy, but it's more than that. This case, which should never have been aired publicly in the first place, has blurred so many lines among the federal government's role, the federal courts and the state courts judicial areas, federal versus state's rights, medical and religious issues, that the only ones who seem to adhere to some form of sanity number very few, who put emotion aside to deal with the facts of the case, not what they wish were the facts of the case.

This case turns my world on its head. Black becomes white, and white slowly changes to black.

Spiritual "leaders" rant like lunatics (I can't name names, but you've seen them); Michael Schiavo, who has acted well during this entire circus, is slandered, vilified, and called a "murderer" for sticking by Terri for 15 years, long after she ceased to know anything. Her responses are not conscious; they are reflexes. How much easier would it have been to just walk away and let the Schindlers deal with the trauma?

But he didn't. Why? Because if he did, he knew that Terri's parents would ignore her wish that she not live this way.

I have heard Terri's mode of death termed "starving" and "dehydration," "cruel and unusual," by people who should know better. How much more do you need air to breathe? Yet no one screams when a respirator is turned off and/or IV tubes are removed.

She is not in pain. How do I know? Because I've sat and watched my grandmother, who was conscious until a brain tumor overcame her faculties, die in the same way for six long weeks after the feeding tube and water were removed. Was she fighting for her life? No, she was trying to let go of her body.

Terri cannot swallow. You want to leave her death to God? Then let Him decide when to take her. Right now, everyone in that so-called "vigil" outside the hospice is trying to interfere with God's will. Trust me, if He doesn't want her to go, He can heal her with or without any extraneous or heroic efforts.

Some people hate "Christians" for this very kind of emotional and vitriolic display. You who are really Christians, stop! You are not witnessing for Christ; you are making a mockery of it and of my beliefs by saying and doing things that are not Christian at all.

I look at this mess, and I see planted the seeds of destruction for my country.

Wake up, PEOPLE! When chaos and emotion take over, order goes out the door, and the "rule of Law" becomes nothing but a nice phrase having no meaning.

This matter boils down to much more than one woman's desire to die with dignity, without the heroic measures which keep the body alive while the spirit longs to leave. It is about who we are and what America stands for.

Everywhere basic rights, guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution of United States, are eroding. We are willing to sell our birthright, bought with the blood of countless individuals over the last 400 years, for a mess of "safeguards" and "safety measures." Beware that the Freedom which we teach and preach in other countries and which so many have fought and died for is not bargained away in bits and pieces.

If you do nothing, you have contributed to our demise and to your own.

In The Book of the Revelation to John while John was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus Christ said to the Laodicean Church:

"The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God says this: 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eyesalve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.

'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me.

'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Revelation 3: 14-22 (NASV).

Immediately before dictating the letter to Laodicea, Christ dictated a letter to the church in Philadelphia.

I personally believe that these two churches represent the two kinds of "Christianity" left on earth before the Great Tribulation begins. When Christ comes for His Church, "churches" will still be doing a brisk business with most pews filled.

To Philadelphia Jesus Christ writes: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied my Name.

'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.

'I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it any more; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which come down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Rev. 3: 7- 13 (NASV)

Notice the choice set before you. It is choice, not coercion. Even if you choose to reject this, it is by your choice that you do it.

Make no mistake: this is a choice that needs to be made now, for who knows what tonight or tomorrow may bring?

I shall leave you with one more quotation from 2 Peter 3: 3-9:

"Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

'But the present heaven and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

'But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.'"--NASV

For those of you wondering why I am talking about the "last days," and making such a big deal out of this, read Matthew 24 and following. Pay particular attention to the "Parable of the Fig Tree." Even this Spring, it is putting forth leaves.

Not Over Yet...Yes, Schiavo's Parents Do It Again

Well, there was hope for ending this saga...but now, the Schindlers have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court once again to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted.

Will nothing stop these people?

Perhaps they heard Justice Clarence Thomas's clerk on "The Abrams Report" and think they might have a chance. Here's hoping the prevailing wisdom of the Supreme Court holds firm, and they refuse to continue this madness.

Postcript to "Ripley"

In a follow-up article, "Federal Court Again Refuses to Intervene," by Ron Word, AP, March 30, 2005, 15:44 EST, Word reported yet another refusal by the 11th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals to hear any further arguments in the Schiavo case.

Word quotes Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.: "Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper... ."..."While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate dischage of duty." Amen!

Let us fervently hope that this ends this seemingly endless saga.

I must add a "Yea, for sanity in the courts!" here.

It appears that Judge Birch also took the President and members of Congress to task as well. (Huzzah!)

While giving them more credit for altruism than I would, Judge Birch said, "...it is my judgment that...the legisilative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution." (Source: see above.)

It's nice to know that my opinions on these weighty legal matters are actually held by some members of the courts. Our Founding Fathers would be proud!

Well done, judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals!

(Gee, it feels good to say that.)

Believe It or Not, Ripley Is Watching This One

Yesterday added a new chapter to the lunacy surrounding the Schiavo case: Her parents are now selling the list of donors who contributed to their fight to "keep Terri alive." His reasoning? (I'm paraphrasing): Things like this cost money. Really? I wonder who pays the bills for other patients in the same condition, or their legal fees, for that matter.

This was followed by offers of videos of the dying Terri for only $100 each, although I do not think her father instigated that one.

I'll agree with Dan Abrams of "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC last night (March 29, 2005) and say with him that these actions are "dispicable."

Makes you think that Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, in an interview on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," wasn't exaggerating about the disagreement regarding Terri's care and "final wishes," which he stated began with a falling out with Mr. Schindler about money.

And Jesse Jackson was everywhere. It's difficult to imagine what religion the man actually believes in when he seems so able to go from being Michael Jackson's spiritual advisor (Jackson is an avowed Jehovah's Witness) to advising the Shindlers, avowed Roman Catholics... .

And then today I read--oh yes--an Associated Press Ariticle by Ron Word released about 10 a.m. CST: "Court to Weigh Schiavo Emergency Motion."

In this most recent travesty of justice and assault on Terri's dignity, Word reports: "A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect her feeding tube... ."

This allowed the Schindler's to file; it did not promise to grant the hearing. According to Word's article, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' deadline for final filings had been March 26th, but..."Its one-sentence order said: 'The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'"

What possible grounds would they have now? Oh, but I left out creativity. This time the Schindlers argue "...that a federal judge in Tampa should have onsidered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law..."(and)"...that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn't consider whether there was enough 'clear and convincing' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition."

I wonder how much more evidence one needs?

Ms. Schiavo has been disconnected from life support systems for 13 days. One wonders what "life" she could be restored to, as several well-known neurologists, who have thoroughly examined Schiavo, say she lacks brainwave function and has not had any brainwave function since 2002. (I listened to a dissenting view from another neurologist who has not examined Terri say that lack of brainwave function was not the issue, while contradicting the neurologist who had examined her. I also listened to several other experts who had recently examined Terri who said the same thing as the first. But they're only experts, right? The predominance of neurologists on their side can't outweigh the diagnoses of the one or two others, who've never examined Ms. Schiavo, can it?)

People who think a miracle will happen if Terri's feeding tube and water are restored lack faith in my opinion. If a miracle is a miracle, then God doesn't need any help from technology to restore Terri. Remember Lazarus?

Please...leave this poor woman to die in peace!

I am amazed at Michael Schiavo's forebearance. I'd be livid by now. His graciousness and willingness to allow an autopsy after his wife dies and before Terri's cremation is beyond the call. And I'm thrilled he's having her cremated. With all of this "Terri is Jesus...I thirst" sacrilege, the next thing would be "harvesting" Terri's organs, which would, no doubt, then become religious relics.

All this is a media circus with hoopla outside of the hospice where, evidently forgotten by those outside, other terminally ill people are fighting for their lives or a peaceful death. Where is the extra money for them, Right-to-Lifers? Excuse me, but you are giving "Right to Life" a bad name. Conservative Christians are being ridiculed because of you. Republicans are losing the support of their base because of this idiocy.

Emotions always run high in families where a loved one is dying. But I've never seen anything as crass, self-serving, political, and money-grubbing as this sideshow.

Ripley wouldn't have believed this.

People Who Give Biblical Christianity a Bad Name

I once had a wonderful English Literature Professor during my years in graduate school at the University of Oklahoma. I shall not mention his name, because he and I were great friends, and his nature would not brook puffery. I shall refer to him as The Professor.

He served, dear man, on my doctoral committee, though we often disagreed. Suffice it to say, he was a Jew, and I was then, and am now, a biblical Christian.

His subject was Charles Dickens, upon whose fiction I doted. I had written a paper on David Copperfield, in which I had found Christian symbology. He, a Freudian, disagreed, and asked me to rewrite the paper. I did. It was called, "If Not God, Then Agnes." I got an A.

Shortly after this incident, The Professor called me into his office. I sat down. He asked: "What kind of Christian are you? I don't understand you at all."

I laughed. I understood him all too well. And I replied, "I'm a Miltonian Christian. I believe in Grace."

Our talks were often and fun. I never remember his trying to convert me, and I knew it was not my job, nor my place to convert him: In my view, the "Great Commission" is not stuffing theology down someone's throat, but simply "being ready to give an answer."

I came to Christianity in my late twenties. By that time, I had been married to a minister who got his graduate degree in theology from Yale. (Women were not allowed to attend at that time.) I heard all the arguments regarding "inconsistencies," the JEDP Theory (which basically says that whoever was in power at the time of the writing of a certain book, rewrote it to fit their ideology--no "inerrant Scripture" there), and the most horrendous teaching of all: that Christianity and belief in an actual God was the best possible ethical system around, for it kept the masses in order, and so, we (the intellectuals) should continue to provide the masses with this religious crutch, which they so desperately needed.

I learned that "Isaiah" was not written by a prophet named Isaiah, but by three Isaiahs. Why? Because "the prophecies contained in the one book were too accurate to have been written by someone not living at the time." The so-called "miracles" were the products of imagination or attempts to explain something to the ignorant people around them. Jesus didn't walk on water: He walked on a sand bar. Jesus didn't rise from the dead: his disciples came and got him. (Anyone read or hear of The Passover Plot?) Of course the Roman guard stationed beside the tomb to guard it had a small problem, i.e., any one of them would be killed if they fell asleep on the job. But the disciples would have had no problem overcoming them easily, and then rolling away the stone, which had been rolled down an incline to cover the cave in which Jesus lay dead. Of course not.

But maybe after being crucified, tortured, and stabbed by a Roman Centurian to make certain He was dead before he was taken off the cross was just rigged? Surely Jesus was strong enough after all that to simply roll this gigantic bolder uphill from inside, overpower the Roman guard, and heal Himself before telling the disciples it was all just a hoax for the benefit of centuries of fools who would believe anything.

Even the most avid Atheist must see there are definite logical and logistics problems with this mode of thinking.

But that doesn't stop anyone from saying or writing the following: Genesis does not talk about literal 24-hour days, but is an imaginative story to explain the beginnings of things to an ignorant populace spanning several thousands of years. We all know evolution does a much better job...(big knowing smile here from the speaker).

My husband, now deceased, did not believe in God, but he was an ordained minister. In fact a lot of ministers, priests, rabbis I have known do not believe in any God, certainly not the God of the Bible.

All of which brings me to my points--sorry, but there are several.

I am not an idiot, unschooled, ignorant, stupid, easily deceived, or emotional. (You may argue with that later.) I also have no axe to grind, except with those people, whether genuinely deceived (they are myriad), deliberately deceptive, hypocrites, hypocrites who use the name of Christianity to enrich themselves, modern Pharisees, legalists, and some TV evangelists who, if they ever truly intended "to win people for Christ," should have gone about it quietly rather than making themselves and my faith seem ludicrous, money-grubbing, and intolerant of those who most need God's Grace, and last, but not least, those who hold themselves above the "common herd" as authorities, but who hide behind "tolerance" when asked directly what their own credo is.

False prophets abound. It is not surprising; the Bible clearly states that they will come. It also states that many false messiahs will appear, claiming to be the Christ. Cults abound in the name of Christ, leading people down a false highway to ruin and disappointment. (I could name names, but libel laws prevent me. It's difficult to prove Truth to so many who are willing to believe lies.)

So, do I have the corner on Truth? Am I smarter than everyone else? Nope. I'm just a modern day disciple, which doesn't mean I'm anything special; a disciple means a "committed learner." And I am that.

You know what I believe. If you don't, you can read my "Pam's Box Theory: the Theological Version" on this site and find out. Unlike many, I'm not afraid to state my beliefs, even if it means a drop in readership (horrors!) or worse yet, being branded a "fundamentalist."

What I do have is a job to "extract the precious from the worthless," and believe me, there's a lot of worthless out there lately. Trying to find the precious in the dungheaps is not a job for the squeamish. You have to have waders sometimes. But there is a shard of Truth hidden in much of the waste.

This is something you should know: many lies contain a shard of Truth. It's the Truth which makes them believable, so that you walk right into the muck, oblivious that you are not in an apple blossomed lane.

Shall we take a case in point? Why not?

Allison DuBois is a public figure now as well as a psychic or medium; the term is not a problem. Is what she experiences and says real? You bet it is. And it's very real for her, and it is not a fun job. But there are a few problems with what is going on with "The Medium." If we take the TV show as giving us a version of actual psychic happenings, then we see a heroic woman, fighting with unseen forces, trying to figure out why she has this "gift" and what "the purpose" is behind it. She finally decides, even though she doesn't believe in any "religion" necessarily, that it must have been given to her by a "higher power" for a reason. That reason, she soon discovers, is to work with law enforcement people to find where the bodies are buried, who did the crime, foretell events which may or may not come to pass, and she does it all for "good" purposes--to save lives, to give the dead peace, to uncover the truth.

For those of you who think I'm about to condemn her, think again. For one thing, it's not my job. For another, she's honestly doing what she thinks is right.

Deception is not easily detected. Good is used for evil purposes, which the doer never intends.

I'll give you an example from a recent episode of the "Medium" in which DuBois discovers a serial killer, but the problem was that the man she knew did the killings hadn't committed them yet. In fact, he wasn't going to kill anyone for several years. So DuBois confronts him. (I'll have to paraphrase here, since I don't have the script in front of me.) "You may fool these people, but you and I know who you are. I don't know who the fiend is or what happened to you to make you into what you are, but you are this killer. You know you think about these things all of the time. You know you do, and you will do these things. I have warned the girl you plan to kill...." It goes on. But the basic problem is this: DuBois senses that something turns this guy into a killer. It never occurs to her that she and her reputation for never being wrong could be the straw that does it. The powers of suggestion are great. He's just been told in no uncertain terms that he's going to commit these murders. Wouldn't you think about it?

So, at the very least, DuBois has set the factors in motion. Did she intend to? Of course not. Will this guy actually turn into a murderer? The chance is there, but so is free will. She's just made it harder to choose not to kill.

The more publicity, the more her "predictions" come true (Satan can and does cause these things to come to pass so her credibility will grow), the greater the chances are that this man, who's done nothing wrong yet, will, if he doesn't break the chain, become the murderer she foresaw.

The other problem with her "gift" from "a higher power" is that she doesn't seem to be able to save anyone. She knows a lot after the fact. In fact, she gets distracted by one "vision" which keeps her from actually saving an innocent.

I agree with DuBois that her power is from a "higher power." But not all "higher powers" are from God or have anything to do with Him. She admits she is not religious, but feels that her "gift" must have a reason. It does. But it's not the one she hopes for.

How do I know this? I was once an Allison DuBois. My "saving grace" was that I had my "gifts" from birth, and I knew they were terrible. I lived in terror for 27 years of my life, always believing and told by other ligitimate psychics that I was having this terror only because I didn't understand how to use my gift. I went to psychiatrists hoping to be told I was crazy. The result? A sane-as-they-come, card-carrying, lab-tested psychic. Oh joy.

I even had one minister in Connecticut ask me to conduct a seance in his sanctuary. I remember telling him, if he believed that my gift was from God, then he believed in another God than the one I'd always heard of. As it turned out, I was right.

I had the nightmares...always between 3 a.m. and 4 in the morning. I was always accurate with Tarot cards, not so much without. I couldn't walk up to someone and tell them what they were thinking or what they were going to do. But when I knew something, I knew it. Totally. Every detail clear. I knew it before it happened, and always too late to do anything about it. And I had witnesses to "visitors" from the "other side." Yes, other people could see them.

Was I excited about this gift? No. Did I try to study and perfect it, so that I could help? You bet. Did it work? No.

I became a Christian unexpectedly on a visit to Illinois. I was very wary of "evangelicals, fundamentalists, and bible-beaters." I'd been to Yale, remember? I knew the Bible. I also knew that all my prayers to "God" had gone unanswered.

So why did I become a born-again Christian? I found someone who could answer my questions and who made sense. I found out why Jesus wasn't just part of the Trinity but the Way...the ONLY way to "God the Father." And it made sense. Perfect sense. No leap of faith, which I didn't have, required. Besides, I hadn't tried that particular venue yet.

Guess what happened when I actually decided to make a decision to trust that Jesus was Who and What He said he was? Nothing. No flashes of light. No speaking in tongues.

But a week later, a head appeared (not an unusual sight for me, I'm afraid) on my bedside table at--you guessed it--about 3:15 a.m. I said, "Jesus, would you handle this; I'm really tired." I turned over and went to sleep. I didn't realize until the next morning how astounding that was--the first night in my entire life that night didn't hold terror.

I thought, hum, might be something to this. There was. The "gift" was gone. You'd think that if it had come from God, I would have still had it, wouldn't you?

Oh, I still have discernment and know when something odd is going on, but I don't have "visitors" anymore, and I don't, thank God, know the future.

I can see deception when it occurs, however. I know what Satan and his cohorts can do and what they can't. And I know that he uses "good" people to do horrible things in the name of Christ and of God.

In the Bible, 1 John in the New Testament, you will find John's warning: "You shall know them by their fruit." If they profess a faith in Jesus Christ, but they don't act like Him for a long period of time, you can probably make the assumption that they aren't Christians, or that they are, but they are "worse than non-believers" because they are turning their backs on God. It takes more energy to do that when you're a Christian than it does when you aren't, so Christians who do are worse than any non-Christian.

No one is without sin. I once saw a bumper sticker that was actually Biblically accurate: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." And that's it.

I didn't make the bad things go away; Christ did. I didn't become perfect overnight; Christ and the Holy Spirit are in the process of "perfecting" me. I don't save anyone; Jesus Christ died to save everyone (yes, even you).

How does Christianity differ from other "religions?" Christianity says salvation has been accomplished; all you have to do is accept it as a free gift from God. Salvation is DONE. Other religions always have something you must do to earn salvation. (Clue: You can't earn it.)

How does salvation work? I am saved by Grace--that means I don't get what I deserved which was hell--through believing that Jesus did what the Bible says He did. I believe it; He applies that salvation to me. Did I have a lot of faith? Heck no. Remember? It was just something I hadn't tried yet. You're not saved by some magical "gift of faith," as some would have you believe. You're saved by a choice to believe God or not.

Read the Bible for yourselves. I recommend the New American Standard Version. It's not as pretty as the King James' Version; it's not as contemporary as the New International Version, but it is the closest English translation to the original languages as you can get.

Suppose, just for a moment that God really can do ANYTHING; that He can work real MIRACLES; that He transcends Time, so He can Know the FUTURE, Past and Present, without necessarily causing it. It's sort of like my going into space and taking a picture of Earth five years from now. The picture will be true; did I cause it? No, I merely saw it. God has a Plan A...no Plan B...and all the possibilities and probabilities were taken into account before He made it, so you can't mess it up. But you do have free will. He just planned around your choices.

This weekend is Easter. For me, Easter is the most important holiday in the Christian calendar. Read 1 Corinthians 15 and you'll see why.

Happy Easter, everyone.

PS. Comments and real questions are always welcome. I had questions. Lots of them. I expected answers. I didn't get them. But if you ask me, I'll do my very best to answer you or point you to someone who can.

Time and Forever

Forever. I've heard that forever is a "long, long time," but that's simply not true. Forever means no Time at all.

I'm beginning with this concept, because you must think about it. It's not a cute quip; it's not just pithy; it's Truth. I believe even Einstein would agree with me....

Time does not exist in space. Don't you love how "space and time" are always linked, yet they have absolutely nothing to do with one another? Two entirely separate realms.

Our lives owe obeisance to "Time" only if we choose. In other words, Time parades in costume of Majesty and Control. But remove the costume, and naught remains but our own subjective view of an artificial reality.

What is time but an artifice based on the movement of sun and moon and stars around which our planet revolves? Remove us from this small sphere, and it ceases to exist.

A long time ago I decided that since time didn't exist except in my head, that it didn't have anything to do with my day. A day could encompass an entire lifetime. A day could be a year or a second.

When I began to think of a day in that manner, I started paying attention to events and moments that wouldn't have caught my notice on other "days."

Have you noticed how some days fly by, while others drag on endlessly...until, they end LOL? Of course you have! But have you ever considered that there might be a reason behind that?

I have tried this experiment several times, and it has never failed me yet. I arrived at this epiphany because "things" piled upon other "things" overloading my life, and several important people, events, opportunities, responsibilities spilled out, sometimes without my notice, until I had driven past, and they were lost to me.

My mind "shotguns." Michele Miller calls it something else, but I call it shotgunning. It's brain, life, overload.

Too many urgent calls for help from equally important sources at the same time...how does one prioritize, much less think?

It was then I thought: If Time is artificial, and God made Time, and He controls it, and He could stop it for Joshua, then why can't He do the same thing for me?"

(OK...you don't believe in Jesus Christ. I do. You don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in context. I do. So sue me. I just know, it works.)

So I asked one morning, when all things were impossible to accomplish within given deadlines, and my family needed me, and there were family emergencies, and I was in grad school, and I had to take a Journalism Law final that day, for extra time.

I got it. I don't know if God sped me up, or slowed Time down, but I do know that some things that were so urgent got cancelled and not by me, and things that should have taken an hour, took 10 minutes.

Near the end of the day, after spending the entire night at the hospital with one of my sons and getting no sleep and no opportunity to study, I walked out of the final, knowing I had failed it. I had no idea of what the questions meant, much less what the answers were. But I didn't care. The day was nearly over.

I had met all the deadlines that existed, my son was fine, and I had taken the test.

It was a good life that day.

Two lifetimes later, I got my final back. Not only had I aced it, but I'd gotten the highest grade in the class. I truly thought my blue book had been mistaken for someone else's. I got up and went to the prof and told him I thought there had been some mistake. He said, "No. Your answers were simply perfect."

Well, I'm here to tell you that I'm not perfect. I don't know how all those answers in my handwriting got into that blue book, but there they were, and they were perfect. I can tell you, I didn't do it.

It was a good life that day.

I'm not the only one to whom this phenomenon happens.

Several days later my neighbor called in panic. Same story: way too much to do in too little time. What she needed was the impossible. So I told her what I had done. She thought I was nuts. I thought so too, but what did she have to lose? The whole situation was impossible, so what was one more impossibility?

She called me three hours later. Everything was done. She was in shock. She had an hour to spare. We had a drink and laughed and watched Callan Pinckney do her bit in "Callanetics." Then my friend left to entertain her housefull of guests who were arriving within 15 mintues.

She enjoyed her day of life; so did I.

When I remember, and that's the trouble--as Peter said, "I know that you know these things, but you have need of reminders..."--I have trouble remembering that each day encompasses an entire life, if I choose to view it that way. But when I do miracles happen. Sometimes the miracles are minute, so tiny that a microscope can't see them; sometimes they are mistaken for "luck;" sometimes the miracles overwhelm me; sometimes my mind can't quite grasp the day's events. But somewhere in my soul, in my mind and spirit, they live on building...life upon life, paths making paths, and leading me into the unknown where Adventure and more miracles await.

Wal-Mart Defines Greed

Favorite quote of the day from Wal-Mart's CFO Tom Schoewe in response to Mark Haines, January 13, 2005, on CNBC's "Squawk Box":

"We're doing well in those three Super-Centers (in California), but shouldn't there be 30 or 50 Super-Centers there?"..."It's the opportunity that's lost for us, for our shareholders, and importantly, our consumers." Tom Schoewe, CFO for Wal-Mart.

I must tell you how much I love Mark Haines. The program, and I'll admit upfront that I didn't see this morning's show in its entirety, centered on Wal-Mart's recent PR offensive, supposedly a blitz aimed at answering its many critics. (Hi, guys! Nice to know I'm not the lone voice out here in Can't Stand Wal-Mart Land.)

The ad I saw reads:

"Wal-Mart Is Working For All Americans. Some of our critics are working only for themselves."

Ahem. Besides having no clue as to what that ad actually means, what does it say? Which "All Americans" would those be? Certainly Wal-Mart can't mean, "all," since you exclude "some" who work for themselves. Wouldn't that include some entrepreneurs? And does this mean that all entrepreneurs are your critics? Surely the "all" is a bit overstated at best....

But let's examine how Wal-Mart describes its work for All Americans...

Let's take their great claims of philanthropic generosity, shall we? I looked up Wal-Marts' net income as of 12/31/04. According to the Wall Street Journal(WSJ), Reuter's reported Wal-Mart's 2004 net annual income at $9,054 million.

Should you misunderstand, that's nine billion, fifty-four million dollars AFTER TAXES.

All their charitable contributions had been deducted from that figure, folks.

Shall I put this in perspective for you?

They offer a website to discuss its larger role in the community. Please. I visited this website. All I can say is caveat emptor: www.walmartfacts.com.

I'll quote from Wal*Mart's own "facts" sheet posted on "Wal-Mart Facts -Do You Know? - Special Programs":

Let's see now:

VFW: $1,000,000.00 in contributions

Tsunami relief: $2,000,000.00 (That's 2005, of course, though they didn't mention that.)

World War 11 Memorial: $6,000,000.00 (They quickly and proudly add that "associates and customers" (that's you) "raised an additional $8.5 million." Please note that associates and customers (how exactly did they measure that?) outspent the much richer company by $2.5 million dollars.

(I'm not a customer nor am I, thank God, an associate, but I was a Charter Member of that particular charity. But since I am a Wal-Mart critic, and proud of it, and I work "for myself," I guess my contributions don't count much. And neither do the contributions of the millions of other Americans who built that Memorial with far less resources at their disposal.)

You get the gist. Now most of these charitable contributions are tax deductible. So they don't come out of that net income figure of over $9 billion. And since no dates are given, we don't know the time period which those contributions cover, so we'll just have to give them the best case scenario and take them all out of the 2004 year.

Let's take the $2 million contribution to the Tsunami relief first...it sounds so good. But how much did it really cost Wal-Mart?

If you do the math, it comes to exactly .0002209% of that $9 billion annual net income recorded by Reuters. And don't forget, they'll probably get to write that off this year's taxes.

OK, let's do the math on the $6 million to build the WWII Memorial and just assume (yeah, right) that was a lump sum given in 2004. Well, based on the annual net income of just over $9 billion, that contribution works out to .0006627% of last year's Net Annual Income.

OK...now that gives you some idea of how much their $1 million contribution to the VFW (also a write-off) is worth.

Some of you associates and Wal-Mart customers regularly give 10% of your incomes to some church or other charities. How does your company's giving match yours? And how does your salary match the net earnings of the company?

I love Wal-Mart's website's "facts" on "America's Armed Forces"...: "We are loyal supporters of our men and women in the armed forces. More often than not, they are our friends, neighbors, and frequently our fellow associates." (With over 1.2 million associates nationwide, I suppose that is true, especially when you add in "friends, neighbors"....)

Get this from the same graph: "In 2004, more than 38,300 of our associates told us they had served in the military. And currently 3,200 associates who are currently on military leave." (That grammatical error is theirs, not mine.) "When associates are called to active duty, we continue their benefits, provide assistance to their families (could you be more specific in that, please?) and make up any difference between military pay and regular Wal-Mart wages." (Gee, I wonder how many times they have to do that?)

To be fair, Wal-Mart's Chief Executive Lee Scott says "the company's average pay is nearly twice the minimum wage, 74% of its hourly workers are full time, and it offers health and life insurance, company stock and a 401 (K) retirement plan."..."We have good jobs." (Taken from a wire article, "Wal-Mart Blasts Critics in Nationwide Ad Offensive," from Little Rock, Ark., published in the WSJ, January 13, 2005.)

Excuse me Mr. Scott, but I can average any company's salaries and come up with an "average wage" which exceeds the minimum. I believe I learned that skill in grade school.

Don't you love this next quote from Scott? "I liken it (the widespread criticism) to being nibbled to death by guppies."

Guppies we may be, Mr. Scott, but we're still killing you.

When stating that "not all...questions are frivolous," when Wal-Mart tries to open a store in a new community, Scott is careful not to answer any of those questions.

Let us go back to their website information: All the first paragraph under "America's Armed Forces" really says is that 38,300 associates served in some branch of the United States Armed Forces at some time; they are not necessarily currently serving in this war. They could have served in any branch at any time. And I say, "Good for you, Veterans!" But how does that say anything special about Wal-Mart?

But considering so many associates served and are serving in the military, wouldn't you think Wal-Mart's contribution to the VFW and to our military efforts and/or troop support would surpass one-half of the amount given to the Tsunami relief?

And please note there are no dates on these figures. Obviously, the World War II Memorial is built, and you can go to visit it in Washington, D. C. If you look, you can see the brick I bought to commemorate my father's service in the Army Air Corps in that war. So when exactly was this $6 million contribution given, Mr. Schoewe? You're the CFO; you're supposed to understand figures and how they are reported.

If I weren't being so charitable, Mr. Schoewe, I would say that these "facts" in your fact sheets are misleading to a degree rarely found in honest, upstanding companies. But, of course, I would never suggest that your people or you were misusing figures to mislead the public, not to mention your associates. I'm certain that these discrepancies are mere...what?

Well, I must get back to "Squawk Box," before I lose my train of thought:

Mark Haines reminded Tom Schoewe that the reason for the PR blitz was to answer critics and get rid of some misinformation they were spreading about Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs and that this was a departure from Wal-Mart's usual stance.

Schoewe's response: "When decision makers are making decisions on bad information, then we get frustrated." (Read: "When the people who are going to let us in or not are being influenced to our detriment, we've got to do something!")

"You're here," said Haines, "to set the record straight."

Schoewe pointed to the problems with California protesters, without going into the reasons behind the protests of course, which he said were the best examples of what he was trying to say. The existing three Super Centers, which were built in California in spite of protests, were doing extremely well.

Haines basically asked Schoewe if these stores were doing so well, then why all the hoopla?

Schoewe replied, "We're doing well in those three Super Centers, but our customers think we ought to have a lot more."

Haines: "But that doesn't mean that the reasons for the opposition were invalid."

Haines then reminded Schoewe that the CFO had not addressed the problems of California's local protesters "not wanting the traffic, the dislocation of local businesses, etc. You're doing well, but maybe the people who protested are not..."

Schoewe: "We're doing well in those three Super Centers, but shouldn't there be 30 or 50 Super Centers there? It's the opportunity that's lost for us, for our shareholders, and importantly, for our consumers in those local markets."

If that's not greed, folks, I don't know what is.

Then Haine's co-anchor, whose name escapes me (my apologies), pointed out that Wal-Mart employed some 1.2 million associates in the nation. So he asked if Wal-Mart's PR blitz exhibited concern for their employees? Which was more important: their associates or their customers?

Then, I swear I'm not making this up, there was a background video of hundreds of cheering Wal-Mart associates in a huge venue, while in a Voice Over Schoewe says: "If you've listened to the Wal-Mart Cheer, then you know that at the end of every cheer we ask: 'Who's Number One?' The answer is the customer. The customer is always number one." (No coaching there...)

The co-anchor asks basically then where does Wal-Mart rank the associate?

(I'm paraphrasing) Schoewe then replies that in order to make the customer number one, they have to take very good care of their associates. "So it's really not number one and number two, it's more like one and one-A."

OK...we've got a PR blitz aimed at critics who are supposedly feeding important decision-makers with bad information --please notice it is not wrong or incorrect; it is just "bad," presumably for Wal-Mart. This is so frustrating to Wal-Mart because it's keeping them from ruining California's beauty and small business communities with huge, ugly, gray cement monstrosities by affecting decisions about potential store venues.

This is not a campaign to counter wrong information; it is a campaign to confuse the issue, which is: Wal-Mart wants to build as many stores as it wants to build where it wants to build them, and the local communities should shut up and just let them come in, until they want to leave that store for greener pastures.

You think they don't do that?

Come to Broken Arrow, OK. I moved here in 1991, and it was a small, pretty, little burg with, thankfully, one Wal-Mart next to 71st aka Kenosha and County Line (that's the line separating Tulsa County from Wagoner County for you outlanders). That store is now abandoned, and it has been for several years now...nearly a block of ugly concrete and an even uglier abandoned store front. I haven't been by there lately; my hope is that someone is occupying that space and will get some use from it.

So where is Wal-Mart in Broken Arrow, one of the fastest growing cities in the United States? Well, they opened their first Super-Center on the SW corner of 71st and Aspen, which used to be one of the prettiest pieces of real estate in the city. Not now. It sports gobs of traffic and a gigantic parking lot with a great ugly gray building now. That entire area is now zoned "commercial," so only fast food stores and gas stations occupy that side of the road for about one half mile south.

Did they stop there? No!

Broken Arrow, once known for its high-yielding river bottom land and grazing land, has now turned into a development haven. And we now have a new turnpike extension running right through it. So where is the other Super Center? Next to the off ramp for 161st aka Elm Street, just south of the turnpike. That's about six miles south and one mile east of their other store, and all for li'l ole Broken Arrow.

Opps, almost forgot their "Neighborhood Market" on 91st & Elm.... Gee, can you say "overkill?"

Local businesses are going away by the score. Grocery stores who try to compete are getting worse by the second in customer service and in inventory available. The others have already gone.

Where do I shop? I think I told you, but I'll tell you again. I drive into Tulsa to a local butcher (Hanover's) to get my meat. (There used to be a local butcher in Broken Arrow, but not anymore.) Across from him is a Wild Oats Store, where I buy the rest of my groceries. Anything else I can't get, I either get at the Broken Arrow's Ace Hardware or my husband goes to Warehouse Market.

I won't buy ANYTHING at Wal-Mart. Why not? I don't like their quality, I should say lack of it; I don't like the way they treat their vendors; I don't like the way they deceive their "associates;" and I'm not too fond of brainwashing. But that's just my opinion and my view.

A friend of mine, who knows a lot more than I can divulge, says that the problem with Wal-Mart's upper echelon is: "They honestly don't know they are bad people."--Anonymous.

Lest anyone think I'm taking aim at Wal-Mart associates, I'm not. The ones I know or have met are usually nice, honest, and very hard-working people who believe in what they are doing and believe in their company.

I'm taking aim at those cognoscenti at the top of the Wal-Mart management tier...you know who you are, and if you don't, I suggest you take a long hard look at your company.

Reading, Truth, and the Mind

"Those of us who are blamed when old for reading childish books were blamed when children for reading books too old for us. No reader worth his salt trots along in obedience to a time-table." -- C.S. Lewis in an essay "On Three Ways of Writing for Children."

Before you misunderstand Lewis's use of "childish," it has the same meaning as reading books meant for children--not the pejorative term "childish" as commonly used in American parlance.

I must confess I conform to his statement: I read books much "too old" for me when I was a child, and I love children's books as an adult. Discovery of Truth knows no age limit. And the brain, when exposed to Truth, innately recognizes it.

That is not to say that the adult chooses to admit that Truth or even remember it, but simply that it exists, whether or not the conscious mind chooses to acknowledge it, and it shapes our personality, whether we will or no for good or ill.

"You are what you eat." Well, I don't happen to think so. I had eggplant the other night, and I'm neither purple, nor elongated with a bulbous end. (Although, now that I put my mind to it, I do absorb much more than my apparant capacity would indicate...think litres of olive oil and translate that to information.)

I believe "you are what you read, see and experience in any form." Books, movies, videos, CDs, music in every genre, lyrics, theatre,newpapers, news, ideas from anywhere, and people--all kinds--what they say and the manner in which they behave, end up shaping us. We pick from this, discard that, and mix them all up and make out of these pieces our whole.

You may wonder at the popularity of such books as J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories, or J. R. R. Tolkien's resurrected books: "The Hobbit," and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy in both book and motion picture genres. You may smile condescendingly or indulgently at "Lemony Snicket's" series, which translated recently into film. "The Polar Express," "The Wizard of Oz," "The Secret Garden," "Babe," "Babe in the City," "Finding Nemo," "Mary Poppins," "Cinderella," "Sleeping Beauty," "Beauty and the Beast," and the list goes on and on and on, all are supposedly for "children," and most of them are in at least two genres, some in even more. I know adults who look for children to take to the movies so they won't look foolish going to a children's flick alone. Please... Wonder and awe, beauty and fantasy, mythological beings and adventures, ideas so big they boggle the mind...are they the province of children alone?

Face it: Tom Peters believes in fairytales. He believes in giants to conquer, dragons to slay, and mountains so tall he needs climbing gear, but he believes he can scale them and that you can too. I wonder where he got his initial ideas? Humm....

So does Roy H. Williams, who is known as "The Wizard," and his website is www.wizardofads.com. So does everyone in one way or the other. You are either a Grinch or a Hero in your own life story. It all depends on what you've done with the information you've gleaned from what you've read, what you've seen, and what you've heard and experienced.

Donald Trump probably loved "Monopoly," because that's what he's playing now, along with Wal-Mart, and other "giants" I could name.

I know I'm digressing. I do it all the time; in fact, it's probably one of the things I do best. But I know where I'm going; I just like to take odd paths to get there.

I don't believe in coincidences or accidents or mistakes. I believe there's a reason for everything, no matter how good or how evil it is. Where did I get that idea?

My job, as I see it, is to "extract the precious from the worthless," which means that nothing is without purpose. "God never said it would be easy; He just said it would be worth it."--Me a very long time ago. (I am Pamela Kay Hawkins...not the other Pamela Hawkins who lives near me.) What made me believe that? Reading, "rubber-hits-the-road" experiences, and taking John Milton's advice in his "Aeropagitica; A Speech of Mr. John Milton...to the Parlament of England," printed 1644. (Hey, just because they're dead doesn't mean they aren't totally contemporary.)

Milton wrote the "Aeropagitica" to "deliver the press from the restraints with which it was encumbered." In other words, he was writing against censorship. (I do love this man, so indulge me.)

"For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them...." (Take that Deconstructionists!) "And yet...unless wariness be used, as good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye."

More Milton, same source: "If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest; for such Plato was provided of....

"Many there be that complain of divine providence for suffering Adam to transgress. Foolish tongues! when God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the motions."..."Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity, will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making."..."Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties....

"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter. Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing."

As you may have gathered, I agree. I also think strangely, as I "see" conversation on a giant blackboard for which I carry a very large eraser. Arguments go up on the board. When my "adversary," in the best sense of the word, finds a hole in my argument, I take out my eraser and erase what I find to be false. In that way, by opining and controversy, Milton's grappling, what is finally left on my blackboard is the closest thing I can get to Truth.

Some find this method of discourse disconcerting and nothing but argumentation. I tried explaining this methodology of my mind to several people, and I finally came up with this: "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?" That's about as close as it gets, folks.

So what influences formed how you think? They may surprise you.

Toys 'R' Us Brand Branded; Wal-Mart a Factor

Just the other day I was reading about Toys 'R' Us being the number one brand people thought of in the toys market. Well, I think Toys 'R Us is going to be known for more than that now.

Did you hear that on Sunday, the day after Christmas, Toys 'R Us fired hundreds of their employees with no notice whatsoever?

Besides being heartless--how about "Toys 'R' Us"...the company without a heart?--it was deceptive.

According to a copyrighted article, "Toys 'R' Bust," by Paul Tharp and Matthew Sweeny, writing for the New York Post Online Edition on December 27, 2004, the company engineered 15 other firings on the East Coast, besides terminating 55 employees at Union Square in New York. The Union Square store is scheduled for closing in January.

It seems that, although a huge surprise to employees who'd been told their jobs were secure, the Toys 'R' Us business has put itself "on the block" and has at least "six active bidders." The idea is to convert from toy stores to baby clothing.

The big threat is Wal-Mart. Well, is anyone surprised by Wal-Mart's power to drive people/companies out of business? They've been doing it for years. I suppose some look on that as a good thing. I don't happen to be one of them. Frankly, I don't think Sam Walton would say it was a good thing, either.

You work really hard at establishing yourself in the marketplace, and WHAM!, you're pretty much gone.

And is Wal-Mart going to hire all the people who've been put out of work because they can undercut just about anyone's prices? I don't think so...but maybe you can get a minimum wage job as a greeter....

OK, so let's talk about a business's responsibility to its employees first. It's important to keep people informed of the company's condition. Panic? People scrambling to find other jobs? Yes, these things happen, but the good ones will try to help the company stay in business, if they think you're telling them the truth. It also allows for them to start saving for the day when they might not have a job.

But there are also responsibilities that employees have to companies. Bailing won't help you keep your job or help the company. And if things turn around, and you'd like to come back? I wouldn't hire you if you paid me.

The airlines are a great example. United Airways had problems over the holidays. So what did the employees do? A lot called in sick, so they made the problems worse and antagonized the company's customers. Talk about cutting your own throat.

Meanwhile the pilots' unions in almost every airline have taken huge salary and pension cuts just to keep the planes flying.

So, here we are again, with Toys 'R' Us lying to its employees and giving them no warning of the job cuts. Happy Holidays, folks.

Are those employees going to rush right out and start buying baby items from Babies 'R' Us? I don't think so. And of course they won't tell anyone....

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart thrives because they care? Nope. Wal-Mart thrives because they can cut prices so low the competition disappears. What can I do about that? I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'll go way out of my way to avoid buying anything there, even if what I buy is going to be more expensive elsewhere.

It's called GREED. People want to get the lowest prices. Wal-Mart has the lowest prices (not necessarily the best quality, in my opinion). So people go to Wal-Mart and wonder why the local businesses disappear. No patrons, no business, no town. Not my idea of the American way.

And now it's a giant brand that's biting the dust. Is your business far behind?

"Pam's Box Theory" Part 1--Theological Version

God's in His Heaven, so why is all not right with the world? This question, along with highly personal ones such as: "I think; therefore I am"...but why?; "Do I have a purpose for exisiting?"; "Doesn't a good God want me to be healthy, wealthy, and wise?"; "What is happiness, and have I ever known it? And if I have, why doesn't it last?"

There is a quote from Honoré de Balzac: "If God exists, then He must be the Devil." Why? Because so much evil exists. Balzac assumed that the world and all that was in it during his lifetime (1799-1857), and even as it now exists, is the same world as it was when God created it. If you assume this, then it is logical, however false the foundation, to deduce that God is evil, and by extension, the Devil.

"Pam's Box Theory" presents facts not in evidence in the above statements: 1) God did not create the world as it now exists, cf: Gen. 1:1, 1:2, 1:31; 2) God's primary purpose in creating Man was not "happiness," nor even prosperity, health, and wealth, on this Earth; 3)There is an angelic being, Lucifer, who actually existed, and who now exists as "Satan" or the Devil. 4) There is no duality or equality between Satan and God. God is the Creator; Lucifer is God's creation who chose to become "Satan." 5) Evil exists because of Free Will.

I don't have time in this short space to present "The Gap Theory" in all its plausibility here. Suffice it to say, that many believe that a "Gap" of perhaps millions or more years exists between Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth" and Gen. 1:2: "And the earth was formless and void..." (also read as "a waste and emptiness"; Heb. "tohu vai bohu" or loosely translated "topsy-turvy")...", and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." (NASV) To create something out of nothing, i.e., the heavens and the earth, and then turn around in the next verse and describe something that is, in the vernacular, a gigantic mess but already exists in some form (note there was a "deep" with a surface; there were "waters;" and it was the earth that was wrecked not the heavens) is a conundrum at the very least, a contradiction to some, and just "something we don't understand or think about" to others.

However, "The Gap Theory," states that there was a creation that predates Gen. 1:2, and that Gen 1:2 is, in fact, a recreation of the earth after some cataclysmic event, which I believe was Lucifer's rebellion. But that's a subject for another day.

Now we get to Gen. 1:31: "And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

So, according to God, on the sixth day of the recreation of the earth everything was "very good." Man and Woman were created by then. So, by definition, on the sixth day, Man and Woman were also "very good." (If you know anything about Hebrew Literature, you will understand that Genesis 1 is a summary of the details coming in Genesis Chapter 2, not a contradiction.)

So, Balzac was wrong. There was a time when the world and everything in it was "very good." So what happened? Genesis 3. And here is where Free Will enters the picture and turns everything around.

(Women, did you know Eve did not sin, but Adam did? "For it was Adam who was first created, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression"--1 Tim. 2:13, 14. "For since by a man came death, by a man also come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive --1Cor. 15: 21, 22.)

So Adam sinned; Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam made a conscious choice against God's command; Eve didn't understand what she was doing--deceived. It takes a great deal of persuasion by the "serpent" to get Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When Eve holds out the fruit to Adam, does Adam say, "What have you done, you Idiot? We're not supposed to do that!" and haul her before God to see what His judgment would be? No, the only record we have is this: Gen. 3:6--"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." Eve had been deceived into thinking what she was doing was a good thing; Adam knew better, but he just ate. That's free will; that's a conscious decision; that's sin.

Not what God had planned for...oops! Time for Plan B? Nope; God has no Plan B. But I'll get into that next time. (This sort of thing can get a bit heavy.)

"The Box Theory"

"The Box Theory" is excerpted from Chapter Four of my book, The Girl In the Back of the Room Copyright 1993 Pamela Kay Hawkins. The conversation takes place between "Laurie," a mixed-up teenager, and her maternal grandmother, "Nana." Laurie has just discovered that she's been adopted by Eric Billings, the man Laurie's mother has always told her was her biological father. She's been snooping in the attic and found her hospital birth certificate saying that her mother was indeed her biological mother, but that her husband was someone she's never heard of.

The conversation begins in medias res with "Nana" talking:

"Are you telling me you don't like the name Billings or that you don't like having Eric as a father?"
"Billings is OK, I guess, and Daddy's fine... . It's just that I feel like the rug's been pulled out from under me: suddenly, Daddy's not Daddy anymore, and someone named Lawrence James Lightman---someone I've never met before---is my real father."
"Laurie, let's get one thing straight right now: there's a lot more to being someone's real father than simply getting their mother pregnant."
"Nana!"
"It's true, and what's more, you know it."
"But my father never had a chance to do those things with me--"
"Believe me, honey, Jim Lightman didn't want the chance."
"How do you know?"
"Because Eric had to have his permission to adopt you after the divorce, and because Jim didn't care enough about his parental rights to show up in court at the adoption hearing. That's how I know---that, and the fact that in all your fifteen years he's never so much as written one word to find out how you were."
It was so quiet in the minutes that followed that Laurie heard each second passing. How could it be that her own father didn't care about her? She was only a baby when he left her; why didn't he want her? Somehow the information didn't make sense. Her stomach ached, and she was suddenly very tired.
Nana put her hand on Laurie's shoulder: "Forgive me, sweetheart. I shouldn't say things like that. Frankly, I'm surprised thinking about that man can still make me this angry. It was all so long ago..." Her voice trailed off and silence flooded the room again. Nana patted Laurie's should quickly and sat back in her chair. "There is something I want you to think about though, Laurie. I don't think it came as a surprise to God that Meg married Jim Lightman, nor was it a shock to Him that the marriage only lasted a year. I think He planned it that way."
Laurie looked up at her grandmother. "I thought you always said God hated divorce..."
"Oh, He does," she said, nodding, "but that doesn't mean He doesn't use it for His purposes on occasion."
"I don't understand; what purpose?"
"Why getting you here, of course." Nana smiled and deftly ran the remaining thread underneath the basket weave on the back. She bent over her sewing basket and pulled out a long piece of sage green yarn and rethreaded her embroidery needle.
"I think I'll work on the tree for awhile," she said, holding up the canvas for Laurie to see. "Pretty, isn't it?"
Laurie nodded.
Nana attached the thread to the back and resumed her work. "Sometimes I embroider and I start thinking how marvelous and strange and wonderfully complicated life is. See this?" Nana turned the canvas so that its back faced Laurie. "It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the picture on the front, does it?"
"No," Laurie answered and quietly wondered what it had to do with anything at all. To be polite she added: "I always wondered how you could get the back to look like that though. Mine always looks like a mess with knots and ends of threads everywhere."
"Mine used to look like yours too. I just learned a new technique---I'll show you how to do it sometime, if you'd like--"
"Is it hard?"
Nana smiled: "No, it's not hard at all; you just have to follow a pattern when you stitch, instead of just going any which way you please." She looked at the back of her work again and smiled. "I used to think there wasn't any pattern in my life, or anyone else's for that matter, especially when things weren't going the way I thought they should. Life looked like the back of one of your pieces of needlepoint---no rhyme nor reason to any of it, and ugly. Parts of life are ugly when all you can see are the parts. I felt like that when Meg ran off and married Jim Lightman."
"Mom ran off?"
"Practically. She knew your grandfather and I couldn't stand him, although I'll tell you now that we really had no good reasons for not liking the boy then--"
"Then why didn't you like him?"
Nana frowned and rubbed her forehead as if her head hurt. "There was just something about him I didn't trust, and Alan didn't like him either...said he was a donkey disguised as a thoroughbred"---she laughed as she said it---"He was too--disguised, I mean---and smooth as melted chocolate with your mother. He was good-looking--"
"I saw his picture."
"Did you?" Nana peered over the rim of her glasses and nodded. "Well, then, you know where your looks come from. You've got Meg's eyes and and her nose, but everything else is pure Lightman."
"Do I really look like him?" Laurie wasn't sure she knew how she felt about looking like someone she didn't know.
"Oh, yes." Nana stopped as if she were going to say more, then bent over and rummaged through her sewing basket, finally finding a small magnifying glass. She reached up and adjusted the lampshade of her lamp so that more light shone on the needlepoint. She positioned the magnifying glass over a portion of her work, then stopped, achoring her needle in the canvas. "I think I'll put this up until tomorrow. My eyes aren't what they used to be."
"Nana?"
"Yes?"
"Why didn't they stay together?"
"Because God wanted you to have Eric Billings as a father."
"No, seriously."
"I am serious." Nana placed her needlepoint in the basket and sat forward in her chair. "Remember the back of your needlepoint?" Laurie nodded. "Well, to us then and to you now the whole situation looked like that mess. Your mother found out she was pregnant with you the month after her honeymoon. Having a baby the first year of his marriage was not in Jim Lightman's master plan--"
"You mean he didn't want me?"
"It wasn't that he didn't want you, he just didn't want the responsibility of being anyone's father. He didn't want any baby in his life then, and he made that quite clear to your mother. He made her life miserable after that; finally, she had no choice but to leave him."
"I don't understand--"
"You'll have to find out the details from your mother. It's not my place to tell you. But I will tell you that your father got mumps shortly after the honeymoon--"
"Mumps?"
"Mumps. After that, Jim Lightman couldn't father any more children. You're his only offspring."
"So you're saying that God made my father sterile?" Laurie was incredulous.
"No, I'm saying God made sure you were conceived before your father got mumps. It's a matter of timing---one month later and there would have been no Laurie Lightman to become Laurie Billings. I think God really wanted you here, and, let's face it, without Jim Lightman, you wouldn't be.
"Think about it a moment, Laurie. Think about all the people over all the intervening years who had to come together at just the right time for there to be a Laurie Billings. If I hadn't married your grandfather, for instance, I wouldn't have had your mother and you wouldn't be here---some other little girl perhaps, but not you."
"So you think God cares whether or not I was born instead of that other little girl?" Laurie shook her head. "I can't see that He's so involved." Laurie looked at her grandmother. "If He is...well, what about kids who are born to parents that abuse them, or who starve to death in some foreign country because of a famine or something? Is God responsible for them too? Is that what He had in mind for them?" Laurie folded her hands and stared at her grandmother.
Nana smiled softly: "Laurie, I'm no theologian, but I do know the Bible say that God is involved wtih each child even in the womb and that children are a reward and that the number of days alloted to each person is written down---set---even before they have lived one. So, yes, I believe God is intimately involved in each person's life...." Nana leaned back in her chair. "I have a theory about why some children have such a hard time in life, while others don't. Want to hear it?"
Laurie did want to hear how Nana could explain God's involvement in all the pain and suffering children went through. Secretly, she didn't think Nana could, or anyone else for that matter.
"It's my 'Box Theory.' See, I think God's resons for being born are much different from what people think they should be. If you or I were in charge, we'd think the best possible thing for everyone would be to be born into the best possible circumstances. Right?"
Laurie nodded.
"And we think that means healthy, perfectly formed, with enough food to eat all of the time, and, probably we'd want their parents to be wonderful people who were caring and probably rich, just so that their children could have every advantage money could buy." Nana stopped and smiled.
"Well, of course," Laurie said, a bit defensively. "Who wouldn't want that for their children?"
"Sometimes I think God doesn't want that---not because He doesn't want children to be happy and healthy, but because He knows each one of us so well that He knows what each one of us needs to accomplish His purpose in our lives."
"Which is what? To make us work really hard for what we get, or just to make us miserable?" Laurie was getting tired of this.
"Neither. God puts us here to know Him so that this life isn't all we have of what He wants us to experience. For some people, having it easy all of their lives is just fine and is never a hindrance to their spiritual well-being. But for others, like me for instance"---Nana laughed---"who are too darned stubborn to think they need anyone other than themselves in this life, God knows a few well-chosen obstacles will help them more than any so-called blessings ever will.
"So He puts every single person ever born in a box--the box is what you are given, that you haven't any say in, like what sex you are, what you look like, what your race is, who your parents are, what country you're born in, what your financial situation is growing up, what situations come your way...." Nana's voice trailed off for a moment.
Laurie was grateful for the respite: something about Nana's theory was begining to make sense.
"You can probably come up with a lot more," Nana continued, " like the circumstances surrounding your conception, but the improtant point is that you have no control over any of these things; they're just given to you. What you do have control over is how you respond to those 'gifts.' And how you respond, my dear, will bring you closer to God or drive you farther from Him.
"The important thing to remember is that God has given each person the best 'box' for that particular individual, and that God's purpose is always---always---in the best interest of that person, whatever you and I may think his or her circumstances look like on the surface."
It was obvious to Laurie that the theological lecture was over, and that Nana felt her point had been made. Laurie wasn't at all sure she bought it.
"So you're telling me God engineered my circumstances for my ultimate good, that He wanted me born, but he didn't want Jim Lightman to act as my father? I'm sorry, Nana, but I'm not so sure this 'gift' as you call it is better for me than having my mother and real father stay married. I think you just don't like Jim Lightman because he did something that hurt your daughter."
"Oh, honey, that's true; I don't like Jim Lightman because he hurt my Meg. But don't think I'm basing my 'Box Theory' on this one situation. I may not be right about it, but up till now it's made more sense than anything else I've heard.
"And you don't have to believe me, Laurie. It just something I wanted to share with you, and maybe give you something to think about."
Nana stood up. "I don't know about you, but I'm getting sleepy. I made up the bed for you in your mother's old room. You know where the towels and everything are."
Nana hugged Laurie and kissed her on the cheek. "Good-night, sweetheart. Thank you for listening to my lecture. I don't know, you may be right, but I'm awfully glad you're my granddaughter, and you'll let an old lady think you're here by divine decree and not just an accident, won't you?"
Laurie laughed and hugged Nana back. "Oh, I suppose so, if it's really that important to you."

End of excerpt.

There are sound theological reasons for this theory, some of which I'll get into one of these days. But this is quite enough for now, don't you think?

The Man Behind the Mask

I believe that inside us all, perhaps when we were children, there existed a mental picture of who we were meant to be, of who we thought we were. Sometimes that image gets lost in the myriad experiences and images that others try to impose upon us; sometimes we can't measure up to the image.

When these things happen, we arrive at a crossroads: whether to continue to try to become the person we always wanted to be but couldn't quite manage on our own, or whether to hide behind a mask.

I am an expert at masks. I see them all of the time, now.

That wasn't always the case.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. To tell you my own qualifications, allow me to tell you about an epiphany I had my Freshman year in college. I was drunk, and I had mixed Valium, which was then thought to be a very harmless drug, with my liquor. I had thought nothing of it. I'd been on Valium since I was eleven years old with no ill effects. I didn't get drunk either. So, no one ever told me that the combination could be deadly. I remember looking into the mirror in my dorm room and seeing my face split into pie pieces, each with a name on it. I looked for me in the center, but there was no me...there was no center. The pieces were what every "name" thought I should be; so to that "name" I was this person; to another name, I was a completely different person. But I had no center. No person called "I" without another person to reflect in. I resolved that moment to find who I was...whether or not it killed me. Knowing who I was became the most important thing in my life, as I realized that living or not, "I" was non-existent.

I lived, as you may have gathered, much to the consternation of the doctors who were called in. "One more drink, or one more pill, young lady, and you wouldn't be here today." Little did they know, that until that moment, I hadn't existed in a very long time.

I was saved in more than one sense that day, but it had little to do in my thinking with religion, psychology, or human behavior, or with fear for that matter. It had to do with survival. My survival. Somewhere along the road, I'd misplaced myself, and replaced "Me" with other people's expectations of who they thought I should be. I had become an adept at masking.

Oh, the problems when I tore off the masks and jumped off the pedestals!

"I don't know who you are anymore" was the common response. I was thinking, "Join the club. I have no clue who I am either, but I'm going to find out if it kills me."

Then I remembered when I was a little girl that every time I thought of myself, I saw this sweet, nice, caring child, who couldn't understand why so many people fought, couldn't see what was before their eyes, and why we couldn't just all love one another. (Believe me, I realize this was a bit naive, but I was naive.)

Later, as I examined my "self" closely, I saw remnants of this kid who cared, but only just. I didn't care. About anyone. I only wanted them to care about me, so I became a mask-maker and wearer. (Sorry, Taymor, I came way before you.) But mine didn't look like masks at all. Mine looked like me, or the me the person I talked to thought they knew.

Taking off the masks terrified me. What if I was the "Invisible Girl" when I removed all of the masks? What if there really wasn't any center to me left? (There really wasn't much left, sad to tell.)

Well, then I'd just have to build one. I began slowly, but finally there was a person...a real one, and I cared. Boy, did I care!

Then came the "Masked Men."

Now, you'd think after all I'd gone through, and all my expertise with masks, that I'd have been able to spot a mask at a glance. Nope. Something very odd had happened to my eyes. I never saw masks, even the very heavy, carefully contructed masks that had taken years to perfect. Totally wasted on me.

What I now saw, though I didn't know it at the time, was the REAL PERSON, the person who was supposed to inhabit that masked body, but who was as lost in the masks as I had been.

So, I related to the person, not the mask. Now, as a mask-wearer, people who ignore masks are very scary people. They see the very things masks are supposed to hide.

To tell you the truth, I don't know to this day whether this ability I've acquired is a gift or a curse. It's certainly not always pleasant. Imagine seeing Dr. Jeckyl when Mr. Hyde is standing in front of you. But the real person is Dr. Jeckyl; the horror that is Mr. Hyde is a fictional terror that has taken over the real man. Mr. Hyde is a mask. That does not make Mr. Hyde any less dangerous.

Why do people wear masks? Oh, lots of reasons: to impress, to hide perceived imperfections, to please, to run from ourselves or what we think we are. At bottom: it is the ultimate self-deception, because in time, the mask becomes the person to the point that that person cannot distinguish between the false and the true.

I just wrote a short piece about Ebenezer Scrooge. Why is this Dickens' character so ingrained in our psyches? "A Christmas Carol" is not just a Christmas story for children, is it? No, it's much more. It's the story of a self-deceived man, a martyr to his own generosity to whom life has been cruel. Money became his god without his knowing it...do you really think anyone sets out to be a monster? So "Scrooge" became the mask, and Ebenezer, the man, was lost...almost beyond redemption. Almost.

I shall digress yet again, because that's what I do best, and tell you another story within the novella, The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis. It is a story about a busload of spirits on the way to Heaven.
Not all decide to stay there. It is too REAL.

There is one instance in the book which tells the story of a man, whose wife is waiting for him in Heaven, when he gets off the bus. He appears to be a tall, dashing orator or actor, who holds a puppet on a string. The man speaks and the puppet dances. But the wife ignores the tall man, and stoops down to talk to the "puppet." She urges him to let go of the string and get rid of the "actor" who is growing stronger by the second. He will not, and finally the "puppet," who is the real man, vanishes, leaving only a hollow actor puppet to return to the bus on its return trip to Hell.

A fun story? Not to me. Not to Scrooge. Not to several "masked men" I've loved, known, watched die, and disappear.

OK. So why am I writing this semi-autobiographical piece? Because Scrooge lived! He chose to change. He chose to look himself in the mirror and say..."So that's who I really am! Do I want to be that person? NO! And I won't be that person anymore." And he changed, and he lived out his days in joy and bringing joy to others.

Is it easy to strip off the mask/s? No. I'd be the last person to tell you that. It's excruciatingly painful, especially if you've been crafting really good masks.

Is it worth all the pain? You bet!

How do you strip off a mask? You take a long hard look at what's behind the mask. You see yourself as you really are...the bad and the good. (Some people have a hard time seeing anything good, but look harder; it's there.) Then decide what kind of person you want to be.

You're going to fail. I won't kid you. I've failed so often I've lost count. But Christmas is the season for Redemption. There's a reason for that: Nothing you or I have ever done, ever will do, or are in the midst of doing right now is beyond God's forgiveness. Take it from a Prodigal Daughter. Ask for forgiveness in Jesus Christ, and you will get it. Don't wait for the boom to be lowered; it never is. Instead you get the Father running toward you with his gown girded so He can get to you faster. You see, He's been waiting for you to take off that mask. The fatted calf is already on the spit.

Merry Christmas!