"BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH!"
(SOOTHSAYER TO JULIUS CAESAR)
SCENE FROM EPISODE THREE - "RIDIN' THAT TRAIN" - OF PL'S TV SERIES: "CITY ROCK!"
This is one of many scenes in the CITY ROCK series that brings us up close and personal inside a therapy session, this one between "Frank Cello" and "Reena," age 6.
Here's a clip from "Ridin' That Train," which will be performed in a staged reading on April 11, at Shetler Studios:
INT. FRANK’S OFFICE, LINCOLN HIGH - DAY
CLOSE-UP on 3 dolls: one black adult male, one black adult female and one black female child. The adult male and the child are held by two little black hands. The adult woman figure stands off to the side.
CAMERA pulls back and we see Reena holding the father and child figure, while Frank observes silently close-by. She never looks at Frank.
Reena makes a growling sound as she first just has the 2 figures jump around near each other, simply giving them life. Then, she makes a whining sound as if something bad is about to happen. The father figure leaves. The child figure is placed in a prone position, as Reena’s whining heightens, becoming more distressed. She starts to reach for the mother figure, then hesitates.
FRANK
It’s all right.
Frank takes the mother figures and slowly brings it to Reena’s hand. Without looking up, she tentatively takes the mother in hand. The whine changes back to the growl, which becomes more and more feral sounding until... the mother pounces on the little girl ferociously. Over and over the mother attacks the child, while Reena’s voice rages at the scene.
CLOSE-UP of the mother in Reena’s hand as it prepares for one more assault. Suddenly, Frank’s hand intervenes, wrapping around the little girl’s hand, stopping the abuse.
Reena strains to free her hand and continue the attack. Frank easily maintains control... until the girl relents.
FRANK
It’s all right. It’s not happening now. It’ll never happen again.
He gently takes the mother figure from her hand and places it far away from the action. Then, he picks up the child figure and first, holds it in his open palm, then brings it to his heart and holds it there.
Reena looks up at Frank’s face. He smiles slightly. She looks sad, but curious. Suddenly, she leaps up from the floor and into his embrace, wrapping her arms tightly around him.
CLOSE-UP on Frank’s face, eyes closed.
Here's a clip from "Ridin' That Train," which will be performed in a staged reading on April 11, at Shetler Studios:
INT. FRANK’S OFFICE, LINCOLN HIGH - DAY
CLOSE-UP on 3 dolls: one black adult male, one black adult female and one black female child. The adult male and the child are held by two little black hands. The adult woman figure stands off to the side.
CAMERA pulls back and we see Reena holding the father and child figure, while Frank observes silently close-by. She never looks at Frank.
Reena makes a growling sound as she first just has the 2 figures jump around near each other, simply giving them life. Then, she makes a whining sound as if something bad is about to happen. The father figure leaves. The child figure is placed in a prone position, as Reena’s whining heightens, becoming more distressed. She starts to reach for the mother figure, then hesitates.
FRANK
It’s all right.
Frank takes the mother figures and slowly brings it to Reena’s hand. Without looking up, she tentatively takes the mother in hand. The whine changes back to the growl, which becomes more and more feral sounding until... the mother pounces on the little girl ferociously. Over and over the mother attacks the child, while Reena’s voice rages at the scene.
CLOSE-UP of the mother in Reena’s hand as it prepares for one more assault. Suddenly, Frank’s hand intervenes, wrapping around the little girl’s hand, stopping the abuse.
Reena strains to free her hand and continue the attack. Frank easily maintains control... until the girl relents.
FRANK
It’s all right. It’s not happening now. It’ll never happen again.
He gently takes the mother figure from her hand and places it far away from the action. Then, he picks up the child figure and first, holds it in his open palm, then brings it to his heart and holds it there.
Reena looks up at Frank’s face. He smiles slightly. She looks sad, but curious. Suddenly, she leaps up from the floor and into his embrace, wrapping her arms tightly around him.
CLOSE-UP on Frank’s face, eyes closed.
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"Let's not fire the teachers when students don't learn - let's fire the parents!"
Bill Maher
Bill Maher
REPOST: "EVOLUTION FAVORS LIBERALS, ATHEISTS AND MONOGAMOUS HUSBANDS!!!"
This is from the National Geographic News, 3/3/10: Liberals, Atheists Are More Highly Evolved? Smarter people more inclined to nontraditional values, study suggests.
Your apelike ancestors probably aren't on the top of your mind when you enter the polling booth. But a new study suggests that human evolution may have a big influence on whether you're liberal or conservative—not to mention how smart you are, whether you believe in God, or whether you've got a cheatin' heart.
It's all linked to the evolution of intelligence, says author Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Kanazawa's theory is that intelligence—particularly our ability for on-the-spot problem solving and reasoning—arose as an adaptation to deal with the unusual and unexpected, such as a sudden forest fire.
Since disasters like that are rare in daily life, responding to them wouldn't likely be something our ancestors were hard-wired to "know" how to do. Surviving the fire required both the ability to think up a new behavior, and the willingness to try it out.
Passed down via genetics, those two traits are still the calling cards of an intelligent brain—expressed as a tendency toward adopting nontraditional social values and preferences, Kanazawa says in his new study, published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
As a result of their iconoclastic ancestry, he suggests, people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example.
PL's comment: "DUH!!"
Your apelike ancestors probably aren't on the top of your mind when you enter the polling booth. But a new study suggests that human evolution may have a big influence on whether you're liberal or conservative—not to mention how smart you are, whether you believe in God, or whether you've got a cheatin' heart.
It's all linked to the evolution of intelligence, says author Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Kanazawa's theory is that intelligence—particularly our ability for on-the-spot problem solving and reasoning—arose as an adaptation to deal with the unusual and unexpected, such as a sudden forest fire.
Since disasters like that are rare in daily life, responding to them wouldn't likely be something our ancestors were hard-wired to "know" how to do. Surviving the fire required both the ability to think up a new behavior, and the willingness to try it out.
Passed down via genetics, those two traits are still the calling cards of an intelligent brain—expressed as a tendency toward adopting nontraditional social values and preferences, Kanazawa says in his new study, published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
As a result of their iconoclastic ancestry, he suggests, people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example.
PL's comment: "DUH!!"
LIKE A ROCK!!
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! To everyone who participated in Friday night's fantastic, light-filled CITY ROCK reading at Shetler Studios, including the full house in the audience. So much great energy and synergy. We were all transported.
See you at the next one - April 11, at Shetler Studios.
See you at the next one - April 11, at Shetler Studios.
BACK TO YOU, RICK? Church Sex Abuse Scandal Has Now Reached The Pope!/Catholic Church Child Abuse Claims Sweep Across Europe
Here are but two breaking stories this week on why I so particularly and relentlessly zero in on the Catholic Church:
VATICAN CITY — Germany's sex abuse scandal has now reached Pope Benedict XVI: His former archdiocese disclosed that while he was archbishop a suspected pedophile priest was transferred to a job where he later abused children.
The pontiff is also under increasing fire for a 2001 Vatican document he later penned instructing bishops to keep such cases secret.
The revelations have put the spotlight on Benedict's handling of abuse claims both when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982 and then the prefect of the Vatican office that deals with such crimes.
DUBLIN — It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation's demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe's many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons.
Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church's worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent – nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.
Yeah, right.
VATICAN CITY — Germany's sex abuse scandal has now reached Pope Benedict XVI: His former archdiocese disclosed that while he was archbishop a suspected pedophile priest was transferred to a job where he later abused children.
The pontiff is also under increasing fire for a 2001 Vatican document he later penned instructing bishops to keep such cases secret.
The revelations have put the spotlight on Benedict's handling of abuse claims both when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982 and then the prefect of the Vatican office that deals with such crimes.
DUBLIN — It often starts as a voice in the wilderness, but can swell into an entire nation's demand for truth. From Ireland to Germany, Europe's many victims of child abuse in the Roman Catholic church are finally breaking social taboos and confronting the clergy to face its demons.
Ireland was the first in Europe to confront the church's worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. Now that legacy of suppressed childhood horror is being confronted in other parts of the Continent – nowhere more poignantly than in Germany, the homeland of Pope Benedict XVI.
Yeah, right.
NICE FOLLOW-UP FROM LOFF56 ON EVOLUTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's LOFF56:
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Evolution is inevitable. It has to be otherwise life would have completely ceased to exist practically before it started.
I'm still not so convinced about the timing of it though. Evolution seems to take the firmest grasp when the species is in it's most precarious position. The more a species is challenged the more it adapts. This is obvious in the biological sense, but I think it rings true on a consciousness level as well. Granted the last few decades have been increasingly challenging to our collective consciousness, but I guess the question up for debate is has it been challenging enough to trigger a swift evolution of our consciousness?
I'm not sure to be honest. I think on some levels it's possible, but on others I'm not so sure. Despite some of the current challenges, I still think that a lot of people are still very comfortable. Both physically and personally. I think a greater majority of people are now seeing a problem, but the problem hasn't come to their home, so to speak, in large quantities yet. And I understand what you mean by certain people riding the wave forward, but to get a wholesale collective consciousness moving there's no doubt we need a certain quantity of individuals to effect that change on the whole. And I'm not sure where critical mass is in that equation. It's possible that we're inches away, but I also think it's possible that the human condition of finding the path of least resistance will continue to kick this can down the road for a bit longer, perhaps decades.
I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, actually for all our sakes I hope the corner gets turned tomorrow and we'll be well on our way to a better world. But the objective side of me always wants to take a look at the scoreboard to make sure we're not deluding ourselves that one touchdown will close a 21 point deficit. Obviously we need the touchdown, but it helps to know how many more we need.
(With apologies for the weak sports metaphor.)
Here's PL:
No apologies necessary, L56. Sports are metaphors to begin with!
I agree with all that you say here, but I would add that while we as individuals don't always know what the collective is up to, I have a feeling we're going to find out sooner rather than later!
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Evolution is inevitable. It has to be otherwise life would have completely ceased to exist practically before it started.
I'm still not so convinced about the timing of it though. Evolution seems to take the firmest grasp when the species is in it's most precarious position. The more a species is challenged the more it adapts. This is obvious in the biological sense, but I think it rings true on a consciousness level as well. Granted the last few decades have been increasingly challenging to our collective consciousness, but I guess the question up for debate is has it been challenging enough to trigger a swift evolution of our consciousness?
I'm not sure to be honest. I think on some levels it's possible, but on others I'm not so sure. Despite some of the current challenges, I still think that a lot of people are still very comfortable. Both physically and personally. I think a greater majority of people are now seeing a problem, but the problem hasn't come to their home, so to speak, in large quantities yet. And I understand what you mean by certain people riding the wave forward, but to get a wholesale collective consciousness moving there's no doubt we need a certain quantity of individuals to effect that change on the whole. And I'm not sure where critical mass is in that equation. It's possible that we're inches away, but I also think it's possible that the human condition of finding the path of least resistance will continue to kick this can down the road for a bit longer, perhaps decades.
I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, actually for all our sakes I hope the corner gets turned tomorrow and we'll be well on our way to a better world. But the objective side of me always wants to take a look at the scoreboard to make sure we're not deluding ourselves that one touchdown will close a 21 point deficit. Obviously we need the touchdown, but it helps to know how many more we need.
(With apologies for the weak sports metaphor.)
Here's PL:
No apologies necessary, L56. Sports are metaphors to begin with!
I agree with all that you say here, but I would add that while we as individuals don't always know what the collective is up to, I have a feeling we're going to find out sooner rather than later!
LOFF56 RESPONDS TO PL'S: ""EVOLUTION FAVORS LIBERALS..."/PL RESPONDS!
HERE'S LOFF56:
It's an interesting theory. I don't think I disagree with the connection. In fact I remember someone putting out a chart after the 2000 election that showed which states voted for Gore and which states voted for Bush listed in descending order of each state's average IQ. The result was a clean break somewhere around an IQ of 100 or so, maybe 98 I think. Every state who's average IQ was above 98 voted for Gore, every state who's average IQ was below 98 voted for Bush. It was a pretty remarkable demarkation line; no cross over at all. So I think there's something to that theory that liberal=smarter. (Obviously there are very smart people who are conservatives and very dumb people who are liberal, but the point is that over large enough numbers there's some intriguing evidence to show that the averages tell the story of the big picture).
However. You should check out the movie Idiocracy. It's a really bad movie, one that barely has any cinematic value to it save for a very interesting central premise. Which is that America is undergoing a sort of a de-evolution. Towards the beginning of the movie the whole premise is summed up in a quick montage that cuts back and forth between two very different families. One, a well to do, well educated, supposedly well adjusted urban couple who are emotionally complicated but ultimately squirrelly in their actions. The second a red-neck ex-high school football player, typical red state, gun toting kind of guy who puts his penis in every hole he can find. As the montage goes on, they show a graphic of each family tree, and you see the family tree of the ex-football player grow and grow and grow as he's constantly impregnating cheerleaders, waitresses etc... On the other side, the urban couple mulls over the decision to even have a child, ultimately their emotional complications lead to them getting divorced and their family tree is left completely empty. Based on the tendency of that dichotomy playing out the movie cuts to a century in the future where the entire population is disastrously stupid.
The theory of how intelligence is evolved makes a lot of sense, but in reality, (which is highlighted in the extreme by the premise of this movie), we're unfortunately experiencing a de-evolution through the over-procreation of the less gifted.
HERE'S PL:
I understand your concern, L56, and welcome back, by the way. Always glad to have your thoughts.
Here are mine -
If we think strictly in linear terms, we certainly would appear to be at risk of devolving into an "idiocracy." Our leaders in all of our major institutions - government, business, religion, medicine, education - seem instead of being the best and the brightest to be the worst and dullest among us. And yes, as inflammatory and not pc as it is to say so out loud, and I applaud you for saying it, L56, it has always been so that the least evolved in a society wantonly procreate the most.
So, where does hope for our evolution lie?
Well, not in our typically understood experience of linear cause and effect, but in quantum mechanics and meta-physics, in a manner of speaking. In other words, to push forward into our next highest phase of growth as a species, we will need to make a quantum shift, a change that is not just quantitative, but qualitative.
This shift is not going to come from advances in technology or philosophy, but from an evolution of consciousness. Quantum physicists know that it is consciousness that moves energy and energy is what everything is composed of. By shifting our level of consciousness, therefore, we will be able to make changes in our outer world that would otherwise be deemed impossible, in linear terms.
The time for such a change is clearly upon us.
Many people are experiencing major shifts in their lives these days, an acceleration of their personal processes, you could call it. As a result, people who are open, who have been working on freeing up their minds, emotions and bodies to a higher consciousness are being swept forward into experiences full of light and love and abundance and a peaceful knowingness. Simultaneously, people who are not open, who cling to fear and hate and superstition (or to guns and religion!), are being slammed by the earthquakes and tidal waves (literally and figuratively) of energy sweeping across the planet.
This is not a time where neutrality or fence-sitting is going to be possible, so fear not, L56. The force behind our evolution is inevitable. What is not inevitable, at least not in the short run, is that all will willingly choose to ride the wave forward. So be it.
Enjoy the ride, I say!
It's an interesting theory. I don't think I disagree with the connection. In fact I remember someone putting out a chart after the 2000 election that showed which states voted for Gore and which states voted for Bush listed in descending order of each state's average IQ. The result was a clean break somewhere around an IQ of 100 or so, maybe 98 I think. Every state who's average IQ was above 98 voted for Gore, every state who's average IQ was below 98 voted for Bush. It was a pretty remarkable demarkation line; no cross over at all. So I think there's something to that theory that liberal=smarter. (Obviously there are very smart people who are conservatives and very dumb people who are liberal, but the point is that over large enough numbers there's some intriguing evidence to show that the averages tell the story of the big picture).
However. You should check out the movie Idiocracy. It's a really bad movie, one that barely has any cinematic value to it save for a very interesting central premise. Which is that America is undergoing a sort of a de-evolution. Towards the beginning of the movie the whole premise is summed up in a quick montage that cuts back and forth between two very different families. One, a well to do, well educated, supposedly well adjusted urban couple who are emotionally complicated but ultimately squirrelly in their actions. The second a red-neck ex-high school football player, typical red state, gun toting kind of guy who puts his penis in every hole he can find. As the montage goes on, they show a graphic of each family tree, and you see the family tree of the ex-football player grow and grow and grow as he's constantly impregnating cheerleaders, waitresses etc... On the other side, the urban couple mulls over the decision to even have a child, ultimately their emotional complications lead to them getting divorced and their family tree is left completely empty. Based on the tendency of that dichotomy playing out the movie cuts to a century in the future where the entire population is disastrously stupid.
The theory of how intelligence is evolved makes a lot of sense, but in reality, (which is highlighted in the extreme by the premise of this movie), we're unfortunately experiencing a de-evolution through the over-procreation of the less gifted.
HERE'S PL:
I understand your concern, L56, and welcome back, by the way. Always glad to have your thoughts.
Here are mine -
If we think strictly in linear terms, we certainly would appear to be at risk of devolving into an "idiocracy." Our leaders in all of our major institutions - government, business, religion, medicine, education - seem instead of being the best and the brightest to be the worst and dullest among us. And yes, as inflammatory and not pc as it is to say so out loud, and I applaud you for saying it, L56, it has always been so that the least evolved in a society wantonly procreate the most.
So, where does hope for our evolution lie?
Well, not in our typically understood experience of linear cause and effect, but in quantum mechanics and meta-physics, in a manner of speaking. In other words, to push forward into our next highest phase of growth as a species, we will need to make a quantum shift, a change that is not just quantitative, but qualitative.
This shift is not going to come from advances in technology or philosophy, but from an evolution of consciousness. Quantum physicists know that it is consciousness that moves energy and energy is what everything is composed of. By shifting our level of consciousness, therefore, we will be able to make changes in our outer world that would otherwise be deemed impossible, in linear terms.
The time for such a change is clearly upon us.
Many people are experiencing major shifts in their lives these days, an acceleration of their personal processes, you could call it. As a result, people who are open, who have been working on freeing up their minds, emotions and bodies to a higher consciousness are being swept forward into experiences full of light and love and abundance and a peaceful knowingness. Simultaneously, people who are not open, who cling to fear and hate and superstition (or to guns and religion!), are being slammed by the earthquakes and tidal waves (literally and figuratively) of energy sweeping across the planet.
This is not a time where neutrality or fence-sitting is going to be possible, so fear not, L56. The force behind our evolution is inevitable. What is not inevitable, at least not in the short run, is that all will willingly choose to ride the wave forward. So be it.
Enjoy the ride, I say!
TODAY'S "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS HEADLINE?" HEADLINE!
Playboy model, Jamie Jungers has come out to say that Tiger Woods never used condoms when sleeping with her, which echoes previous reports from other women.
PL:
My question is - what form of birth control was Jamie not using?
HELLO?!!?
PL:
My question is - what form of birth control was Jamie not using?
HELLO?!!?
RICK WITH MORE ON PL'S "REACTIONARY REACTIONS" TO INSTITUTIONS, ESPECIALLY THE CHURCH!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's Rick:
Once again, your "do over" is much easier to follow because you actually make sense with a well, thought-out response instead of a reactionary/impulsive rant.
You rightfully articulate that the evolution of institutions, typically creates a wide gap between those very principles on which it was built and the need for self-preservation. We see that with almost all large institutions to a degree. It sucks and I agree with you. The damaged caused is inexcusable! We can list many institutions, hospitals, schools, unions and your favorite = organized religious organizations or is it just the Roman Catholics?
Humans will never create that Utopia. Sir Thomas More was right in that America had the best chance at it because it had no history or institutions that usually end up screwing things up.
Greed, selfishness and pride can cripple people /institutions that begin with good intentions. Look at relationships. Many, familial, spousal or amicable all can fail or are dysfunctional because of those same traits. In the end, it is about choices and individuals doing the right thing. The best thing would be to protect the image or what's best for the individual. The right thing is what is best for everyone as a whole
However, as long as the principles of those institutions remain just and provide a significant contribution to allowing one to give themselves full permission to live, go for it.
Now, why do you only provide a story about the church and not the medical profession or police? What is your point? Why the need to go back? You did a great job in your response leave it alone.
Your ax to grind with these institutions appears to cloud your judgement in critiquing them. You simply support the very points that have been made. Where is the self preserving in this story? Where is the "institution" at fault. I need some help on this one.
Draw my own conclusions? OK. The story speaks about a corrupt/gay businessman and a gay choir singer. (I know why the Post included they were gay, but that is of no relevance to the point of the story and it exposes its agenda). They were immediately released from their lay church duties once those "bad apples" who were involved in illegal activities were exposed. It makes no mention of the institution's involvement or knowledge. If it did, those bastards!
According to your own critique of these institutions, we should be applauding the church! You should be encouraging people to return to the pews! Alleluia! The institution that usually screws things up actually put its ideals first. A renewed faith should be the call of the blog not draw your own conclusion.
Needing some here....
Here's PL:
Hello again, Rick!
So, since your main critique seems to be about my being particularly negative about the church, let me address that.
Yes, the other institutions - law enforcement, medicine, education, etc. - have their equally corrupt, self-serving side to them and deserve full scrutiny. But the church, and organized religions in general, are extra nefarious in their egoism because they strike at the heart of what could be the solution to the corruption in the other institutions - true spirituality.
A spiritual perspective that understands that love is the essence of All That Is, that we create our own reality, individually and en masse, and that we are all one holds the potential to heal so much that is ill with humanity. Instead, organized religions utilize fear of a wrathful and vengeful God, along with child-like promises of reward or punishment for proscribed behaviors, and also perpetuates a separation from and superiority over other people and their religions and belief systems. Case in point - even though Jesus himself said "The Kingdom of Heaven is within each of YOU," and also said that we all would be able to effect miracles like him one day, the church methodically manipulates not to empower its members with an understanding that we all have access to God's creative powers, but rather to minimize and intimidate its flock with guilt and shame.
It is always much more insidious when one uses parts of the truth to infiltrate consciousness with lies. That's why I single out religion, Rick, not for any lack of spirituality on my part, but because of it. That being said, since love is the essence of All That Is, we create our own reality, and we are all one, I understand that churches are part of the plan, too, that through their low vibration, we can find our way to the light!
Thanks for the stimulating dialogue!
Once again, your "do over" is much easier to follow because you actually make sense with a well, thought-out response instead of a reactionary/impulsive rant.
You rightfully articulate that the evolution of institutions, typically creates a wide gap between those very principles on which it was built and the need for self-preservation. We see that with almost all large institutions to a degree. It sucks and I agree with you. The damaged caused is inexcusable! We can list many institutions, hospitals, schools, unions and your favorite = organized religious organizations or is it just the Roman Catholics?
Humans will never create that Utopia. Sir Thomas More was right in that America had the best chance at it because it had no history or institutions that usually end up screwing things up.
Greed, selfishness and pride can cripple people /institutions that begin with good intentions. Look at relationships. Many, familial, spousal or amicable all can fail or are dysfunctional because of those same traits. In the end, it is about choices and individuals doing the right thing. The best thing would be to protect the image or what's best for the individual. The right thing is what is best for everyone as a whole
However, as long as the principles of those institutions remain just and provide a significant contribution to allowing one to give themselves full permission to live, go for it.
Now, why do you only provide a story about the church and not the medical profession or police? What is your point? Why the need to go back? You did a great job in your response leave it alone.
Your ax to grind with these institutions appears to cloud your judgement in critiquing them. You simply support the very points that have been made. Where is the self preserving in this story? Where is the "institution" at fault. I need some help on this one.
Draw my own conclusions? OK. The story speaks about a corrupt/gay businessman and a gay choir singer. (I know why the Post included they were gay, but that is of no relevance to the point of the story and it exposes its agenda). They were immediately released from their lay church duties once those "bad apples" who were involved in illegal activities were exposed. It makes no mention of the institution's involvement or knowledge. If it did, those bastards!
According to your own critique of these institutions, we should be applauding the church! You should be encouraging people to return to the pews! Alleluia! The institution that usually screws things up actually put its ideals first. A renewed faith should be the call of the blog not draw your own conclusion.
Needing some here....
Here's PL:
Hello again, Rick!
So, since your main critique seems to be about my being particularly negative about the church, let me address that.
Yes, the other institutions - law enforcement, medicine, education, etc. - have their equally corrupt, self-serving side to them and deserve full scrutiny. But the church, and organized religions in general, are extra nefarious in their egoism because they strike at the heart of what could be the solution to the corruption in the other institutions - true spirituality.
A spiritual perspective that understands that love is the essence of All That Is, that we create our own reality, individually and en masse, and that we are all one holds the potential to heal so much that is ill with humanity. Instead, organized religions utilize fear of a wrathful and vengeful God, along with child-like promises of reward or punishment for proscribed behaviors, and also perpetuates a separation from and superiority over other people and their religions and belief systems. Case in point - even though Jesus himself said "The Kingdom of Heaven is within each of YOU," and also said that we all would be able to effect miracles like him one day, the church methodically manipulates not to empower its members with an understanding that we all have access to God's creative powers, but rather to minimize and intimidate its flock with guilt and shame.
It is always much more insidious when one uses parts of the truth to infiltrate consciousness with lies. That's why I single out religion, Rick, not for any lack of spirituality on my part, but because of it. That being said, since love is the essence of All That Is, we create our own reality, and we are all one, I understand that churches are part of the plan, too, that through their low vibration, we can find our way to the light!
Thanks for the stimulating dialogue!
HARTKITT: "HEY, PL - DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH THE DEFENDERS OF CATHOLICISM!"
HK:
"That is a special case all by itself as sexual repression and all sorts of twisted attitudes towards sexuality are inherent in the basic structure of the priesthood. Add in the fact that the church has a lot to lose if stuff like this gets out and you have a whole stinky kettle of fish."
PL: Point taken, HK!
"That is a special case all by itself as sexual repression and all sorts of twisted attitudes towards sexuality are inherent in the basic structure of the priesthood. Add in the fact that the church has a lot to lose if stuff like this gets out and you have a whole stinky kettle of fish."
PL: Point taken, HK!
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE... DUST?! TODAY'S DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION HEADLINE!!
BREAKING:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican state Senator Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence. Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents. Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican state Senator Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence. Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents. Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
SCENE FROM CITY ROCK EPISODE TWO: "SHOOTING STARS"
This episode will be put up in a reading this coming Friday evening, 3/12, 7 PM in The Bridge Theater at Shetler Studios, 244 West 54th Street, between Broadway and 8th Avenue. If you would like to attend, e-mail me at: fpliving@aol.com... or just come on over on Friday night.
Here's the gripping moment from the episode when the rookie cop, Otha Prescott, riddled with guilt, cannot draw his gun to stop a crook.
EXT. BODEGA IN EAST HARLEM - NIGHT
An HISPANIC MAN in a Yankees baseball cap is wandering through the isles of groceries, looking around, waiting until the store is empty.
CUT TO:
INT. POLICE CAR - SAME MOMENT
Otha, in uniform, is in the passenger seat. He is tormented. His partner, COP ONE of the cops from the shooting incident, is driving, non-plussed. They are in mid-conversation.
COP ONE
You got hit pretty hard so early on the job, O. You never really get used to it, but you’ll calm down.
OTHA
We killed an innocent man.
COP ONE
Hey. O. Listen. The bad guys, they’re always killing innocent people... except when they’re killing each other. The good guys, the cops, we only go after the bad guys, but sometimes... an innocent gets hurt, maybe even killed. You can’t blame yourself. In the end you’re gonna save a lot more lives than you put at risk.
Otha turns back to look out the window. They pass the same bodega we were just in.
CUT BACK TO:
INT. SAME BODEGA - SAME MOMENT
The man in the cap rushes up to the STORE OWNER, also Hispanic, behind the cash register, and pulls a knife on him demanding money.
MAN
The money! Give me the money or I cut you. NOW!
The store owner cautiously opens the register, while reaching down under it. As he starts taking out the money, he pulls out his gun quickly. The startled crook reacts, dropping the knife, then grabbing the owner’s hand with the gun. They struggle as the gun goes off and shatters the store window. The gun flies away as the two men grapple with each other.
We see the flashing lights of a police car as it screeches to a stop in front of the bodega. Otha jumps out and rushes into the store. The two men separate. Otha pulls out his gun. The crook starts running, but Otha is unable to fire, his hands trembling. The crook leaps out through the shattered store window as Otha’s partner rushes in.
COP ONE
What’s happening?
Otha can’t talk. He is still trembling.
COP ONE
O? Officer O!?
STORE OWNER
(furious)
He got away! He let the mother-fucker get away! Why didn’t you shoot him?!
O is just staring into space. His partner stares at him.
CUT TO:
EXT. SAME BODEGA - LITTLE LATER
Several cop cars, lights flashing, are on the scene now. Otha’s partner has pulled him away from the action.
COP ONE
O? You all right, kid?
OTHA
(fighting tears)
I-I don’t know. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t pull the trigger.
His partner just looks at him.
Here's the gripping moment from the episode when the rookie cop, Otha Prescott, riddled with guilt, cannot draw his gun to stop a crook.
EXT. BODEGA IN EAST HARLEM - NIGHT
An HISPANIC MAN in a Yankees baseball cap is wandering through the isles of groceries, looking around, waiting until the store is empty.
CUT TO:
INT. POLICE CAR - SAME MOMENT
Otha, in uniform, is in the passenger seat. He is tormented. His partner, COP ONE of the cops from the shooting incident, is driving, non-plussed. They are in mid-conversation.
COP ONE
You got hit pretty hard so early on the job, O. You never really get used to it, but you’ll calm down.
OTHA
We killed an innocent man.
COP ONE
Hey. O. Listen. The bad guys, they’re always killing innocent people... except when they’re killing each other. The good guys, the cops, we only go after the bad guys, but sometimes... an innocent gets hurt, maybe even killed. You can’t blame yourself. In the end you’re gonna save a lot more lives than you put at risk.
Otha turns back to look out the window. They pass the same bodega we were just in.
CUT BACK TO:
INT. SAME BODEGA - SAME MOMENT
The man in the cap rushes up to the STORE OWNER, also Hispanic, behind the cash register, and pulls a knife on him demanding money.
MAN
The money! Give me the money or I cut you. NOW!
The store owner cautiously opens the register, while reaching down under it. As he starts taking out the money, he pulls out his gun quickly. The startled crook reacts, dropping the knife, then grabbing the owner’s hand with the gun. They struggle as the gun goes off and shatters the store window. The gun flies away as the two men grapple with each other.
We see the flashing lights of a police car as it screeches to a stop in front of the bodega. Otha jumps out and rushes into the store. The two men separate. Otha pulls out his gun. The crook starts running, but Otha is unable to fire, his hands trembling. The crook leaps out through the shattered store window as Otha’s partner rushes in.
COP ONE
What’s happening?
Otha can’t talk. He is still trembling.
COP ONE
O? Officer O!?
STORE OWNER
(furious)
He got away! He let the mother-fucker get away! Why didn’t you shoot him?!
O is just staring into space. His partner stares at him.
CUT TO:
EXT. SAME BODEGA - LITTLE LATER
Several cop cars, lights flashing, are on the scene now. Otha’s partner has pulled him away from the action.
COP ONE
O? You all right, kid?
OTHA
(fighting tears)
I-I don’t know. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t pull the trigger.
His partner just looks at him.
TODAY'S DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION HEADLINE FOR RICK AND HARTKITT!!
From today's WASHINGTON POST: Vatican Hit By Gay Sex Scandal!
"The Vatican has been thrown into chaos by reports that one of the Pope's ceremonial ushers, as well as a member of the elite Vatican choir, were involved in a homosexual prostitution ring. The allegations came to light after Italian newspapers published transcripts of phone calls recorded by police, who had been conducting an unrelated corruption investigation. The tapes appear to record Angelo Balducci, a "Gentleman of His Holiness," (no joke!) negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Nigerian Vatican chorister, about men he wanted brought to him for sexual purposes.
"The Vatican has been thrown into chaos by reports that one of the Pope's ceremonial ushers, as well as a member of the elite Vatican choir, were involved in a homosexual prostitution ring. The allegations came to light after Italian newspapers published transcripts of phone calls recorded by police, who had been conducting an unrelated corruption investigation. The tapes appear to record Angelo Balducci, a "Gentleman of His Holiness," (no joke!) negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Nigerian Vatican chorister, about men he wanted brought to him for sexual purposes.
"HARTKITT" JOINS RICK TO SLAM PL ON THE "EPIDEMIC" OF PEDOPHILIA AMONG PEDIATRICIANS AND PRIESTS!/PL RESPONDS!
Here's Hartkitt:
I see Rick got here before me but that's because I've been mulling over in my mind how to best comment on this post for several days.
First of all, I was surprised to see you jumping on the STRANGER DANGER!! CHILD MOLESTER IN EVERY CORNER!!! band wagon. The article you quote is so absolutely typical of the fear-mongering smoke and mirrors that characterizes this kind of story. "DOZENS!!" "At least 20!!!" Well, I went and did the numbers. There are approximately 85,000 pediatricians in this country and 70 million children (sources US census and American Academy of Pediatrics). Twenty pediatricians represents a miniscule percentage of the total number of pediatricians. It's so small that it's hard to say that there's any kind of correlation between "pediatrician" and "pedophile." Chance could account for that number of pediatricians being pedophiles (or pedophiles being pediatricians.) In fact, it might be that such a small fraction is LESS than other professions.
If "dozens" of those 70 million children were molested by their pediatricians that's still such a tiny percentage as to not even be calculable by my simple desktop calculator. The statistical reality is that children are most likely to be sexually molested (and beaten and murdered for that matter; I've looked this one up before) by their immediate family members. By a vast margine. So I'm with Rick on this one. We're not going to go around herding kids into giant institutions to protect them from their families and neither should we be treating our pediatricians with suspicion as a general rule.
Essentially, I think it's a bit careless to impugn pediatricians on this front, not to mention intellectually mushy.
AND here's my point on sexual repression: my personal theory is that our society is obsessed with the image of the mysterious child molester somewhere Out There because of, yes, repressed sexual feeling. Pardon my lack of the correct technical words here but by projecting ones own sexual feelings outwards onto shadowed figures in the environment one can pretend not to have those feelings oneself. In addition, those sexual feelings can be indulged surrepticiously by obsessively following news stories of evil day care workers even while hiding behind the pose of tut-tutting the moral weakness of those molesters. Having your cake and eating it to on the sexual feelings front.
And the society as a whole can excuse itself for sexualizing younger and younger children in the way they are dressed and the way they appear in "the media" by patting itself on the back over vigorously hunting down and condemning "real" child molesters.
FINALLY, I get to expound that theory in public :D
Here's PL:
Okay, HK! I hear you! And I agree with much of what you are saying, in a very lucid way, I might add. But I also hear something in the article I referenced, that there is more happening than what just that one study referred to, and something more than just the heinous case of the Bradley perpetrator, something that makes sense. Perhaps one of us can do the research. In any case, glad to have you and Rick hitting me up!
I see Rick got here before me but that's because I've been mulling over in my mind how to best comment on this post for several days.
First of all, I was surprised to see you jumping on the STRANGER DANGER!! CHILD MOLESTER IN EVERY CORNER!!! band wagon. The article you quote is so absolutely typical of the fear-mongering smoke and mirrors that characterizes this kind of story. "DOZENS!!" "At least 20!!!" Well, I went and did the numbers. There are approximately 85,000 pediatricians in this country and 70 million children (sources US census and American Academy of Pediatrics). Twenty pediatricians represents a miniscule percentage of the total number of pediatricians. It's so small that it's hard to say that there's any kind of correlation between "pediatrician" and "pedophile." Chance could account for that number of pediatricians being pedophiles (or pedophiles being pediatricians.) In fact, it might be that such a small fraction is LESS than other professions.
If "dozens" of those 70 million children were molested by their pediatricians that's still such a tiny percentage as to not even be calculable by my simple desktop calculator. The statistical reality is that children are most likely to be sexually molested (and beaten and murdered for that matter; I've looked this one up before) by their immediate family members. By a vast margine. So I'm with Rick on this one. We're not going to go around herding kids into giant institutions to protect them from their families and neither should we be treating our pediatricians with suspicion as a general rule.
Essentially, I think it's a bit careless to impugn pediatricians on this front, not to mention intellectually mushy.
AND here's my point on sexual repression: my personal theory is that our society is obsessed with the image of the mysterious child molester somewhere Out There because of, yes, repressed sexual feeling. Pardon my lack of the correct technical words here but by projecting ones own sexual feelings outwards onto shadowed figures in the environment one can pretend not to have those feelings oneself. In addition, those sexual feelings can be indulged surrepticiously by obsessively following news stories of evil day care workers even while hiding behind the pose of tut-tutting the moral weakness of those molesters. Having your cake and eating it to on the sexual feelings front.
And the society as a whole can excuse itself for sexualizing younger and younger children in the way they are dressed and the way they appear in "the media" by patting itself on the back over vigorously hunting down and condemning "real" child molesters.
FINALLY, I get to expound that theory in public :D
Here's PL:
Okay, HK! I hear you! And I agree with much of what you are saying, in a very lucid way, I might add. But I also hear something in the article I referenced, that there is more happening than what just that one study referred to, and something more than just the heinous case of the Bradley perpetrator, something that makes sense. Perhaps one of us can do the research. In any case, glad to have you and Rick hitting me up!
TEENS OF REPUBLICANS HAVE MORE BABIES!
Here's a news story that shouldn't surprise anybody, but nonetheless, think about it:
"Mississippi Has Highest Teen Birth Rate, CDC Says"
"Mississippi now has the nation's highest teen birth rate, a new federal report says. Mississippi's rate was more than 60 percent higher than the national average."
Oh yeah, Mississippi has voted Republican in presidential elections for the last 28 years.
Hmmm...
"Mississippi Has Highest Teen Birth Rate, CDC Says"
"Mississippi now has the nation's highest teen birth rate, a new federal report says. Mississippi's rate was more than 60 percent higher than the national average."
Oh yeah, Mississippi has voted Republican in presidential elections for the last 28 years.
Hmmm...
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"Accepting your integrity in time allows the body to function until its natural end, in good condition, free from those distorted, invisible concepts about age."
Jane Roberts (channeling "Seth")
Jane Roberts (channeling "Seth")
MORE ON INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION - BEYOND "BAD APPLES!"
Here's a story about an actual "good apple" in the NYPD for my friend, Rick. This cop came forward to expose the quota system in the NYPD that leads to harassment of citizens.
From ABC NEWS: "NYPD Officer claims pressure to make arrests."
"When Officer Adil Polanco dreamed of becoming a cop, it was out of a desire to help people not, he says, to harass them. 'I'm not going to keep arresting innocent people, I'm not going to keep searching people for no reason, I'm not going to keep writing people up for no reason, I'm tired of this,' said Adil Polanco, an NYPD Officer."
Read the entire story HERE.
From ABC NEWS: "NYPD Officer claims pressure to make arrests."
"When Officer Adil Polanco dreamed of becoming a cop, it was out of a desire to help people not, he says, to harass them. 'I'm not going to keep arresting innocent people, I'm not going to keep searching people for no reason, I'm not going to keep writing people up for no reason, I'm tired of this,' said Adil Polanco, an NYPD Officer."
Read the entire story HERE.
RICK IS BACK! HITS PL ON PL'S "ANTI-INSTITUTIONALISM!"/PL RESPONDS!
Great to have you back, Rick! You're always one to help me sharpen my focus, if not my verbal knives!
Here's Rick:
Ok Pete, I'll bite....
I thought the reckless broad brush was whittled down a piece? I guess it would make for much less interesting blogging if you didn't.
To castigate entire institutions because of a very few bad people is simply unsound even when other "bad apples" protect them.
I already posted all of the "institutions" that have "bad apples" back in July. You accurately mentioned the police, yes I would agree with this, and doctors. But you hold a dear place in your heart for the Catholic Priests (Here's one from your book = Are they idealized adults of your youth who let you down???)
Again, only 5% of the sicko priests were accused. A far less number were actual pedophiles, abusers of prepubescent children, like the doctors you mention. Most, as with teachers, social workers and doctors, engage in sexual abuse to minors. Also, most of the priests were homosexuals, not pedophiles.
Well, you hooked me particularly your obvious omission of therapists and your distinction of "western doctors". Unfortunately, abusers come in all shapes, sizes, religious affiliation and geographical "practices" and sexual preferences. Should we hate all heterosexuals? Should we hate all homosexuals? No. Should we should strike down all those people who take advantage of their position and abuse children, adults and the elderly? Yes! Yes! Yes! It matters less their affiliation to a group or profession and more their affliction. Should we hate Muslims? No. Muslim terrorists? Yes.
The highlighted cases of female teachers having sex with their middle school students (one happened in the school district where I teach) and several cases involving abuse of high school students parallel those of many "bad apples". However, do you then keep your children out of schools?
What about the Wall street scandal? Those bastards have raped and abused the lives of many more people than all of the institutional "bad apples" combined. Does that mean we shouldn't invest in good companies or take our money out of the banks and retirement funds?
Should we not go to schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, therapists' offices, churches, temples, mosques, social services or any institution that has bad apples? I think not.
We should embrace those institutions that help us become self-actualized and I feel all of those have the potential to do just that. We should support those professions that help us find peace in our society and within ourselves and protect and help us.
It is intellectually dishonest to simply demonize those very institutions because of the actions of a few, regardless of how heinous those actions may be.
There is only one exception. Those institutions/professions whose practice and philosophy supports abuse. Neo Nazis???
Thoughts?
Here's PL:
As always, Rick, your points are well-taken, and as is almost as often the case, I have a response.
Institutions, for the most part, are set up in such a way that the survival of the institutions after a while takes precedence over the quality and integrity of the service that the institutions were meant to provide. This is the nature of bureaucracies that are based on an authoritarian rather than a collaborative model. "Bad apples" end up getting deliberately hidden from view for fear that exposure of their presence will damage the reputation of the institution, which of course, only encourages bad apples to continue being bad. It might seem ironic to some, but not to this blogger, that the more authoritarian or hierarchical the institution (i.e. - priesthood and police, etc.) the greater the propensity for acting out.
Organizations that are truly democratic at least hold the potential for solving this problem.
At my 12-year old's school, for example, the Brooklyn Free School, all aberrant behavior - by students or teachers - is immediately brought to the attention of the entire community and a "democratic meeting" is held to resolve the issue and decide on consequences, if necessary. Acting out is never swept under the rug for the sake of the school's reputation, nor are bullies able to rise to power amongst the student population or the staff. As a result, integrity reigns at the Free School.
You ask - provocatively - "Should we not go to schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, therapists' offices, churches, temples, mosques, social services or any institution that has bad apples?"
Well, actually, my answer, without taking the bait of the way you framed the question, is that, yes, as much as possible, we should seek health care services, education and safety from providers who are "out of the box" of establishment institutions that have shown a tendency towards corruption and exploitation. I haven't been to a "mainstream" doctor in almost two decades, and I am in fine health as a result, and as a bonus, my immune system hasn't been destroyed by drugs. Likewise, I would be very hard-pressed to send a child of mine to a traditional doctor, a traditional school or a traditional psychotherapist, and I certainly wouldn't send anyone I loved to a church, temple or mosque of any kind. And as far as the police are concerned, on the rare occasions that I have been a victim of a crime, I have found the police to be indifferent and useless at best, if not altogether downright incompetent. (Although in fairness, when it comes to skulking around neighborhoods waiting for parking meters to run out, I have found cops to really be on their game!)
The nature of "conservatism" is to conserve traditional ways of doing things. The nature of "progressivism" is to explore new ways of doing things. When I examine history, I never find a time in the past that looks more inviting than the future, even when there are problems in the present. We grow by reconsidering and re-examining the way things are currently set up and operating, and knowing that we can do better.
I know we can do better.
Okay, Rick. That's it for now. Once again, welcome back! Hope your travels have been enlightening.
PL
Here's Rick:
Ok Pete, I'll bite....
I thought the reckless broad brush was whittled down a piece? I guess it would make for much less interesting blogging if you didn't.
To castigate entire institutions because of a very few bad people is simply unsound even when other "bad apples" protect them.
I already posted all of the "institutions" that have "bad apples" back in July. You accurately mentioned the police, yes I would agree with this, and doctors. But you hold a dear place in your heart for the Catholic Priests (Here's one from your book = Are they idealized adults of your youth who let you down???)
Again, only 5% of the sicko priests were accused. A far less number were actual pedophiles, abusers of prepubescent children, like the doctors you mention. Most, as with teachers, social workers and doctors, engage in sexual abuse to minors. Also, most of the priests were homosexuals, not pedophiles.
Well, you hooked me particularly your obvious omission of therapists and your distinction of "western doctors". Unfortunately, abusers come in all shapes, sizes, religious affiliation and geographical "practices" and sexual preferences. Should we hate all heterosexuals? Should we hate all homosexuals? No. Should we should strike down all those people who take advantage of their position and abuse children, adults and the elderly? Yes! Yes! Yes! It matters less their affiliation to a group or profession and more their affliction. Should we hate Muslims? No. Muslim terrorists? Yes.
The highlighted cases of female teachers having sex with their middle school students (one happened in the school district where I teach) and several cases involving abuse of high school students parallel those of many "bad apples". However, do you then keep your children out of schools?
What about the Wall street scandal? Those bastards have raped and abused the lives of many more people than all of the institutional "bad apples" combined. Does that mean we shouldn't invest in good companies or take our money out of the banks and retirement funds?
Should we not go to schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, therapists' offices, churches, temples, mosques, social services or any institution that has bad apples? I think not.
We should embrace those institutions that help us become self-actualized and I feel all of those have the potential to do just that. We should support those professions that help us find peace in our society and within ourselves and protect and help us.
It is intellectually dishonest to simply demonize those very institutions because of the actions of a few, regardless of how heinous those actions may be.
There is only one exception. Those institutions/professions whose practice and philosophy supports abuse. Neo Nazis???
Thoughts?
Here's PL:
As always, Rick, your points are well-taken, and as is almost as often the case, I have a response.
Institutions, for the most part, are set up in such a way that the survival of the institutions after a while takes precedence over the quality and integrity of the service that the institutions were meant to provide. This is the nature of bureaucracies that are based on an authoritarian rather than a collaborative model. "Bad apples" end up getting deliberately hidden from view for fear that exposure of their presence will damage the reputation of the institution, which of course, only encourages bad apples to continue being bad. It might seem ironic to some, but not to this blogger, that the more authoritarian or hierarchical the institution (i.e. - priesthood and police, etc.) the greater the propensity for acting out.
Organizations that are truly democratic at least hold the potential for solving this problem.
At my 12-year old's school, for example, the Brooklyn Free School, all aberrant behavior - by students or teachers - is immediately brought to the attention of the entire community and a "democratic meeting" is held to resolve the issue and decide on consequences, if necessary. Acting out is never swept under the rug for the sake of the school's reputation, nor are bullies able to rise to power amongst the student population or the staff. As a result, integrity reigns at the Free School.
You ask - provocatively - "Should we not go to schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, therapists' offices, churches, temples, mosques, social services or any institution that has bad apples?"
Well, actually, my answer, without taking the bait of the way you framed the question, is that, yes, as much as possible, we should seek health care services, education and safety from providers who are "out of the box" of establishment institutions that have shown a tendency towards corruption and exploitation. I haven't been to a "mainstream" doctor in almost two decades, and I am in fine health as a result, and as a bonus, my immune system hasn't been destroyed by drugs. Likewise, I would be very hard-pressed to send a child of mine to a traditional doctor, a traditional school or a traditional psychotherapist, and I certainly wouldn't send anyone I loved to a church, temple or mosque of any kind. And as far as the police are concerned, on the rare occasions that I have been a victim of a crime, I have found the police to be indifferent and useless at best, if not altogether downright incompetent. (Although in fairness, when it comes to skulking around neighborhoods waiting for parking meters to run out, I have found cops to really be on their game!)
The nature of "conservatism" is to conserve traditional ways of doing things. The nature of "progressivism" is to explore new ways of doing things. When I examine history, I never find a time in the past that looks more inviting than the future, even when there are problems in the present. We grow by reconsidering and re-examining the way things are currently set up and operating, and knowing that we can do better.
I know we can do better.
Okay, Rick. That's it for now. Once again, welcome back! Hope your travels have been enlightening.
PL
"LJB" ON TODAY'S BONUS QUOTE!
"This is one of my favorite quotes! Thanks for posting, PL!"
LJB
The quote: “Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.”
Henry Van Dyke
LJB
The quote: “Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.”
Henry Van Dyke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
