The Chest, Part 1.

The Man had sought all methods he could to find a solution to his dilemma. Prayer, incantations, magical potions, scientific inquiry, logical deduction: all of these he had pursued in earnest at various times, and still he was faced with his dilemma. The weight of it had almost become bearable over the years. He still felt the Burden, but it had become such a part of his life that the pain and weariness it caused were a natural state. He could no longer remember what it was like to not feel the weight of the Burden.

He looked in the mirror and sighed. He turned slightly to see the Burden squatting there on his upper back like an obscenely huge tick. The straps which criss-crossed his chest dug into the muscles so deeply, it almost looked as if they were growing into his body. They were so tight he couldn't even fit his pinky finger between them and his skin. He had tried many ways of cutting them, and only after injuring himself-with no damage to the straps-had he given up trying to cut the straps by normal methods.

He wasn't even sure what was inside of the strange pack that just seemed to appear on his back one day. He had an idea that it had been growing there for years, perhaps his entire life, and he had paid no attention to it until noticing the weight of it that day.

Burdens are like that, he mused. When we are young and thoughtless we don't pay much attention to the consequences of our actions. We go about seeking delight and joy and entertaining our senses, as though there is nary a cost to be paid for our frivolity. Only too late do we come to understand the true cost of our narcissism. If we ever do...

He though of his many friends who think they have no Burdens to bear. How wrong they are: the Man could see theirs as clearly as his own. Some of them were hunched over by the weight far more than he. How could they not know of the great bag of woe strapped to them, forcing them to walk about like some sort of goblin or less than human animal?

He could only conclude that they never looked in a mirror. No, that was preposterous: they had to look in the mirror to care for themselves. In fact, how could such self-absorbed people not look in the mirror at every chance? Perhaps the problem was that they were not looking into the right sort of mirror?

The Man wondered if his own mirror were special, blessed with powers that allowed him to see the burden that others couldn't. No, that wasn't it: no matter which mirror he looked into, he still saw the Burden.

Even passing by a shop window he saw it there, lurking on his back and gradually sapping the life out of him. As time had passed it grew noticeably larger, and he wondered if there would come a day when he would be no more and, upon looking into the mirror, all he saw was that great, hideous thing that was the Burden.

He realized it was not the mirror that mattered, but how a person looked into it. They had to want to see beyond their own reflection, based as it is on the illusion of Self, the idea that each “ME” is the Center of the Universe, and everything else revolves around “ME”. (The illogical notion that there are billions of Centers of the Universe simultaneously occupying the planet is never considered by the Narcissist. That's why narcissism exists, because people consider only what they want to see in the mirror, not what is actually there. Their indifference to reality is why they don't recognize their own Burdens, nor are they bothered by the weight. Some even seem to take pride in knowing the weight is there, but not realizing it is a Burden.)

So... he could see the Burden, not only on his own back, but on the backs of others. What set him apart? Why such a gift? What made him so special...the Man ceased that dangerous line of thinking. After years of seeing and feeling the weight of his own Burden, he'd recognized he was nothing special. He was just a Man carrying his own Burden,and all he had come to desire from life was to be free of it. To think too much of himself would simply make the Burden grow even faster, of that he was certain.

Not that he didn't feel compassion for others who bore their own Burdens, (whether aware of them or not). He found that the more he tried to deal with his own burden, the stronger his desire to help others with theirs grew within his heart. He had long ago decided that, should he find the Key to getting rid of his Burden, he would gladly and freely share it with others.

He knew there were others who had come to see their own Burdens. He knew they could see his as well. It seemed that once a person was able to see his own Burden, all Burdens became visible to him. The Man eventually recognized that all who are able to see Burdens shared the same look in their eyes, a sort of desperate hope for a solution combined with a humble resignation to the weight of the Burden, and the occasional fire of determination to be rid of it one way or another.

He had even seen some people without any Burdens clinging to their backs. At first he thought it was simply because he lacked the ability to see them. He realized after a time that these people also walked tall and proud and free and full of joy, and not as with some of the worst Narcissists, who were that way because of total denial of their own and any other Burdens in the world. No, these people were genuinely free of any Burden, and walked as human beings were meant to walk, in total freedom, able to look at themselves in the mirror with total integrity and acceptance of their true selves.

The more he saw such People, the more he wanted that freedom for himself.

So it was that a Day came when there was a knock on the door of his home. It was just a single, loud rap that oddly sent echoes reverberating through his small house for a second or too (as though he was standing in a great hall, rather than a living room with scarcely enough room for a sofa and the easy chair he was sitting in, reading a book.) He hadn't had a visitor for ages, so he was at first hesitant to get up and answer the door.

He waited for a second knock, and, when none came after nearly a minute, he sprang out of his chair and rushed to the door, hoping he might catch Whoeveritwas if he were walking away.

He opened the door to find no one there. He cautiously leaned out a bit to look to each side of the doorway to see if someone were hiding there, but all he saw was the windows and shrubbery beneath them. He took a step forward, intending to walk to the gate of his front yard to look up the street to see if anyone was heading away from his house. That's when he nearly tripped over the Package.

It was about the size of a loaf of bread and wrapped in plain brown paper. There was no address on it, so he guessed it hadn't been delivered by the usual Post. The only writing on it was in a simple, yet elegant script:

Per Your Request.

The Man stared down at the Package for a moment, perplexed. Then he furtively glanced up and down the street, as though picking up a Package at his own front door were some sort of suspicious activity. Taking a deep breath and a sigh, he quickly picked up the Package and darted back inside.

He sat down on the sofa and placed the Package on the low table before him. He stared at it for some time, wondering who it was from and asking himself many questions regarding what could be in it and the peculiar way in which it was delivered. He considered for a moment that it might be some sort of bomb or trap or something entirely too dangerous to open. He leaned over and gave it a listen, and heard nothing. He tentatively picked it up and and shook it: he heard and felt a very slight bump from within, but that was it.

Well, there's nothing else to it he thought, then he quickly tore at the wrappings like he was once again a child opening the biggest present on his birthday. What was revealed was an old looking, nondescript chest. It was of greyish colored wood, that looked like it had once been red oak or cherry. It was constructed very much like his mother's jewelry chest, a simple wooden box with a hinge lid and single hasp in front. There was a note attached to the top, written in a much less eloquent (even messy) script. It read:

The Answer to Your Inquiry Lies Within.

There was no signature, no initials, nothing to identify who wrote the note and, presumably, who sent him the Chest.

The Man stared at the Chest, many thoughts flooding his mind, for a very long time. So long that he was startled when he realize the sun had gone down and it was past his dinnertime. He hadn't touched the Chest the entire time, so he finally picked it up, quite gingerly, and rotated it in his hands to examine it. He found no other markings to give any indication of who the Chest was from or what it contained.

He stood up and walked over to the mantle, placing the chest just below the mirror on the wall above it. He looked in the mirror, shaking his head as he saw the unavoidable Burden, then looked at the Chest.

The only “inquiry” I have made for years is how to remove the Burden. Could it be that whatever is in this Chest will allow me to do just that? The Man's heart began to pound and his breath quicken at the prospect that the Chest contained some sort of blessed, magical thing that would at long last relieve him of the Burden.

He realized that he was grinding his teeth in thought, painfully so, and took a step back from the chest. He rubbed his face and again looked into the mirror. Shaking his head, he reached for the Chest, placing his thumb below the hasp.

End Part 1 of “The Chest”

"We're all the same..."

Dear Well Meaning Friend,

I know you are completely sincere when you try to defuse discussions about race, ethnicity, religion and prejudice by saying, “we are all just the same. Why can't we just get along?”. I do have to point out, however, that we are not the same, at least not when it comes to how our various cultures, religions, and the color of our skin, affects our world view and behavior.

Sure, we all have the same basic wants and needs: food, air, water, shelter, the desire to love and be loved, to be free, to be respected and appreciated. We all bleed the same color blood when cut. For the most part, we all are conceived, born, age and die in the same ways. That's because biologically, we are all the same species. Yet, to reduce our cultural diversity to biological uniformity is a grave error in perception which actually fosters problems rather than offers solutions.

I'll explain what I mean from the perspective of a Native American, specifically from a Mohawk perspective. Please understand, friend, that I am not offering this explanation as a way of putting you down or creating conflict or trying to make myself appear superior to others. (In fact, I will touch on the subject of superiority and inferiority later on.) I'm doing this because, as I noted above, what seems like a good approach to racial, ethnic and religious differences actually isn't.

Let me start with a foundational difference within my traditional, Mohawk culture.  My Mohawk ancestors lived in a culture that was Matriarchal. Clan Mothers had the ultimate authority. Clan membership was passed through the mother. Property rights were held by the women. Our male sechems (chiefs) were chosen by the Clan Mothers, who held the right to veto the sechems' decisions and if necessary, remove an unsatisfactory one from office.

Our very language communicates the idea that women are fully equal to men, and in a certain way "superior", because they bear the gift of creating and nurturing life, whereas men can only manipulate that which is already created. So profound was our view that women possess great spiritual, creative power that it was they who oversaw the cultivating of our crops. We never had a need for “Women's Lib” or Feminism because we never placed women as being beneath men in any way.

This fact alone tells you how different the Mohawk were, and are, from Euro-American culture. Europeans, and then Americans, have always had a Patriarchal society, which treated women as second class citizens for centuries. They were the property of their husbands, viewed as tools for sexual gratification and child bearing. For centuries they were not allowed the same education as men, because it was expected that they would be satisfied being wives and mothers. In the U.S. women were not even allowed to vote until 1920, and then it took a Constitutional Amendment because the foundational document of the United States did not originally allow women the same rights as men!

So, caring friend, your very idea of how women should be treated is going to be fundamentally different from mine and my traditionalist Mohawk relations. This applies to some extent to all First Nations, even those which have a Patriarchal, rather than Matriarchal, tradition.

Many other aspects of Mohawk culture were, and are, different from your own. Our spiritual tradition, as with other First Nations, holds that nearly everything in Creation is to be considered sacred. We view ourselves as spiritual beings dwelling, temporarily, in a physical world that is not truly separated from the spiritual realm. Most of your religions tend to teach that we are physical beings seeking spiritual experiences. We see Creation as existing as one great circle. 

Your culture tends to impose a dualist view, in which there is the World of Flesh and the World of Spirit. It becomes very black and white for you, because the World of Flesh is inherently evil but the World of Spirit is inherently good. We don't see it that way, because we don't view Creation in terms of either/or, black and white. It's a multicolored, holistic Creation in which both sides of everything are needed, they coexist in order to maintain balance.

We have many items we consider sacred: drums, rattles, flutes, pipes, eagle feather fans and other feather items. All of these are treated with great respect and according to certain protocols. Your religions tend to say that this is a form of idolatry, that no “thing” is needed to commune with Creator, only prayer and faith. With that we will agree: our sacred items are used to demonstrate our faithfulness in both their making and in their use.

We don't try to convert others to our religions. We view that as something between each person and Creator. We, as Mohawk, see no threat or are not concerned that the Navajo or Lakota or Tlingit have a different spiritual tradition than our own. The same Creator set before them traditions that are different from ours. Different, but not better.

In your culture, there is constant argument about which religion is the right one. Yes, you have many who feel that “all religions lead to God”. But you have many more who argue constantly that their own religion is the only right one. This even occurs within the same belief, such as the thousands of Christian denominations or the various sects of Islam. This constant conflict of spiritual ways is one reason why we have been so skeptical of missionaries trying to convert us to their “true path”.

The most telling difference in our spiritual views is this: the First Nations views our relationship with Creator in terms of where we dwell, that we live and die in the place we believe Creator placed us. Your religions tend to focus on the historical events in which you believe Creator manifested Himself as a demonstration of His love. To us, our land, and the provision it offers, proves His love for us. For your religion, it is His intervention in events throughout history. Therein lies the major difference in our view of land.

We view land not as something we own, but as something of which we are a part. The land “owns” us. All of us. Equally. As a community. It is not ours to sell, but rather to manage as stewards. This includes offering a place for others to dwell in peace, if they so desire and are trustworthy. Taking us from our land is disruptive to us not only physically, but spiritually. It is the same for us as locking up all the churches and confiscating all the Bibles would be for Christians.

You view land as a commodity, something that can be bought and sold. It is used to make a profit: indeed your culture views all of Creation as something which can be exploited for profit. It is normal for you to think you can own more than you need: more land, more possessions, more money, more power. Your culture even values people not for who they are, but for how much they have. Those who have the most are allowed to exploit those who have little, and it's called “good business”. Some of your culture even blame the poor for being poor!

These seems to be because in your culture, you are always looking for enemies, for reasons to fight. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically a potential enemy. Of course, not all of you are this way, but it is so deeply ingrained in your culture that you cannot escape it's influence. Your culture applauds competitiveness and the arrogance that goes along with it. Our culture does have competitive games, but in the end we applaud those who cooperate more than those who contend with others. That is because ultimately, our lives are richer, and even depended upon, a sense that we are all family.

Our view that we are all related leads us to have a very different view of private possessions. Many of our Nations held all but the most basic items such as clothing or weapons in common. It was not unusual for someone to simply pick up an item that was not in use and make use of it for a time, even if that item “belonged” to someone else. The “owner” always knew he could get it back when he needed to use it.

We celebrate birthdays not by heaping presents upon the person, but by that person and her family giving away what they could to their family, friends, and members of the community. Our chiefs were often the poorest people in our communities materially, because they tended to give away what they had to those in need.

Our spiritual elders and our healers dare not demand any sort of fee for their services. Such things as the ability to heal are a gift from Creator, and so should be given freely to the community. They didn't fret about this, because the community made sure such vital members as healers and those with spiritual wisdom were provided for.

So it is we had a very different views on material possessions and wealth. In fact, in many of our Nations, a person's wealth was counted by how many relations he had given something to, by how she had enriched their lives, by how much better off the community was for his or her presence and efforts.

By contrast, your culture is very much about making a profit off of even the most sacred of giftings. Your religious leaders and healers can be some of the wealthiest people around. You even find it acceptable to withhold care for the sick or injured if they don't have the money to pay for care.

Overall, my Mohawk ancestors would be called “Socialists” by those of your current culture. The implication by some who did so would be to claim that we were inferior to “Capitalists”.

Which brings up what I mentioned above about being superior or inferior. Euro-American culture is driven by the desire to conquer, to improve, to own more, make more, be more than everyone else. There are things that are admirable about this desire, such as it leading to improvements in technology. Better food, clothing, shelter, medicine, tools and machines have come as a result of the drive to improve that is at the heart of Euro-American culture. If only you tempered that drive with greater respect for Creation, and people, so that less harm was done to the earth and to others in your pursuit of “bigger, better, faster, stronger”.

By contrast, our cultures took such things very slowly. Because we emphasize our relationships with Creator, Creation and other people over accomplishment, we would be reticent to make “improvements” that might be too disruptive. We were content to live at a level of harmony with the earth and each other that didn't drive us to force changes in our lives.

I will grant that this is because we were blessed to have a vast land available to us. There was not a lot of pressure on our resources. Between our spiritual traditions, our views of community and the simple, Eden-like environment in which we lived, there as not the “Mother of Invention” (necessity) pressing us to develop technology as was the case with Europeans.

Europe had a great deal of people in a relatively small area. Your feudalism meant that nobles owned a disproportionately large amount of land compared to the commoners. You divided yourself into nations based on bloodlines and who was supposedly given divine mandate to be king. It is no wonder that you developed such a competitive world view and were forced to always find ways to make the most of what you had, and to defeat your enemies.

Such a crucible of conflict has bred a deep attitude of competitiveness over the centuries. This attitude naturally leads to assumptions of what is inferior vs what is superior. Superior is what will win: inferior is what will lose. The result is that Euro-American culture indoctrinates individuals into the attitude that if anyone questions your status quo, they are attempting to prove their own status quo to be superior to yours. After all, that is what you would do, right? There is little room for the idea that diversity is not only not a threat to the status quo, but can actually enhance people's lives.

The Europeans came to Turtle Island, looked upon how the First Nations lives, and immediately declared us to be primitive savages. Because our political, economic and social structures were different from the Europeans (though no less sophisticated), we were judged to be simplistic in our lives. Our less developed technology regarding metallurgy, construction, medicine etc (though our agricultural wisdom was greater than yours) led the early colonists to deem us as inherently inferior to themselves. Their religion even led some of them to classify us as less than human.

As a result, for some Europeans found it quite easy to enslave and murder us in the Name of God. For others it was a Manifest Destiny to push us off our lands and force us to adopt their culture, language, religion and form of government. The First Nations suffered five centuries of such treatment. Millions were killed or died from disease and deprivation. We have been driven off our traditional, sacred lands. Our languages have almost disappeared. Our spiritual traditions have been suppressed, even outlawed. Our form of government has been replaced. We have, as a people group, suffered the greatest disruption in human history.

People cannot endure such things without there being profound changes. Scientific research has even uncovered evidence that such catastrophic events cause changes in the DNA that is passed on to children and grandchildren. The reality is that the First Nations (along with many other minorities) have suffered events that still deeply affect us today, and will continue to affect our people for generations to come. We cannot just easily dismiss the impact of the past upon the present, and the future.

Despite modern efforts to improve things minorities still suffer from the differences between the majority, privileged group and ourselves. We see the same events and statistics, but because of our differing world views, interpret and process them differently. At times we simply don't come to the same conclusion as you do regarding what to make of a given event or statistic. It is our view, not yours, that we are expressing.

Which brings up the hardest part of this letter, friend. 

Consider this: maybe, when you try to defuse arguments about race, ethnicity, religion and prejudice by saying, “we are all just the same. Why can't we just get along?” what you are really saying is “You should all act like I do, and be like I am, and view the world as I view the world. Then we can all get along because we are all pretty much the same.” That is how we, as minorities, can interpret such a statement. Coming from someone who embraces the majority culture, (a culture that committed offenses against minorities) we see a not too dissimilar attitude from that which contributed to the worst aspects of colonization: slavery, genocide, betrayal and theft.

If we were only just like you, there would be no conflict. 

You see, my friend, the very fact that we are members of a minority (different) culture, race, ethnic group or religion means we are indeed different from members of your culture in many profound ways. Please accept that not as a threat, but as an opportunity to embrace and celebrate how each of our cultures can enrich the entire world and in so doing, each other's cultures.

You want to defuse conflict not by changing yourself and your culture's view of diversity, but by attempting to make the diversity disappear. The only way to do that is to get us, those who are different, to disappear as well, either by assimilation or annihilation.

It's that attitude, even more than any words or actions, that causes us concern.

On Being Dogmatic

We all reach for those things we cannot grasp. We seek answers to questions that define our existence and our place in the universe. We reach out to those things which help us make sense out of our own behavior and that of the rest of Creation. We have an innate need to believe in something, to find an reference point which anchors our perception of reality.

In reaching out, we often become develop certain inflexible opinions about what we have observed and experienced. When we decide that our conclusions are an objective, unassailable expression of what we have observed and experienced, it becomes dogma, rather than belief or opinion.

Dogma is created in the mind of man. Whether you believe in a divine Creator, or an impersonal universe, neither of these is responsible for any dogma people insist on embracing. Both are objective in and of themselves, but both also are at the mercy of the subjective perception people have of them.

There are absolute truths, of course, for both the believer in the Divine and the Atheist. What must be remembered is that our perception of whatever truths we witness and accept is flawed, and so we are unable to develop an absolute perception of any absolute truth.

What this means is that we are best off leaving our declarations of those truths we see at "I believe" or "This is how I see things". As soon as we decide to say "This is the way it IS!", we have imposed our own flawed and imperfect reference point-ourselves-upon what otherwise would be an objective truth.

A person from a faith which believes in inerrant Scriptures might say "I can show you the absolute truths of my beliefs in my Scriptures". But can that really be done. Speaking as a Jesus follower who is quite familiar with the Bible, I can attest to just how many different interpretations, and resultant dogma and doctrine, can arise from the same passage from the Bible.

Indeed, I'm of the opinion that, given what the Bible says about faith, we honor Creator more by simply saying "I believe in Him" than by trying to present a set of empirical proofs of His existence. After all, according to Hebrews 11:6, without faith-that is, the evidence of things not seen, the essence of things we hope for-it's impossible to please Creator. Absolute proof of His existence obviates the need for faith. Both believers and atheists err greatly in this regard.

The Bible itself was written within specific historical and cultural context, and is viewed by each of us in specific historical and cultural context. That is not to say that there is no truth in the Bible. Rather, it's a humble admission that, as Paul wrote, what we see is but a poor reflection of the Spiritual reality we will some day witness face to face. We only know in part right now. We cannot declare the incomplete reflection of Truth to be an Absolute without imposing our own will upon it. This, in my opinion, is a form of idolatry, setting our own minds upon an alter as judges of Creator's truths.

Therein lies grace,and faith: we say "I believe..." and trust that Creator, in His love and Mercy, holds us accountable for that little bit we get right rather than all the things we get wrong. I used to be a very strong proponent of the idea that to truly honor Creator, to really follow Christ, I had to be dogmatic about certain things. Then I came to understand how flawed my own expression of certain truths can be. I had a choice to either ride a carousel of trying to objectify my subjective perceptions, or to understand that my own faith, and Creator's mercy, count for far more than what I think I know to be Absolute Truth. I've found it makes my spiritual walk both simpler and more fulfilling to concentrate on who I am in Creator rather than whether I can prove that what I believe about Him is Absolute Truth.

It's up to His Holy Spirit to convince people of the Truth anyway.

Atheists and those who look to science as the source of all truth are no different, really. One can argue there are scientific absolutes, such as gravity or the speed of light, but that would be both incorrect  and missing the point when it comes to dogmatic belief(both of these aspects of the observable universe have variances in definition and constants, depending on which school of physics, such as Einsteinian or Quantum, is applied). Certain "constants" are assumed to be constants inasmuch as we haven't yet uncovered or accept evidence to the contrary. (Yet even light slows down when passing through certain substances, such as a diamond.)

First, just saying "there is gravity" is not a basis for belief in science as a purveyor of absolute truth. There has always been gravity, even before men came up with a name and a theory of physics as to why it exists and how it affects the universe. What is still lacking is an explanation of exactly how gravity works. There are several theories, but no one can say "this is the right explanation, and all others are wrong." Ironically, in a discipline declared by some to be based on absolutes, there is as much bickering and disagreement regarding many of those absolutes as there is among theologians.

Many scientists are careful to use the term "observable universe" or "to the extent of our knowledge" when dealing with such matters. Any scientist worth listening to will readily admit that what we know is a small fraction compared to what we don't know. (that "dim reflection" idea again.) Perception of the evidence, and conclusions reached, is often far more subjective than some scientists will let on. There are even theories that our our observation itself alters the universe in some way. "Schrodinger's Cat" is a perfect example of how scientific thought itself allows for observation/perception to directly affect the outcome of a given, observable action.

Some try to become dogmatic about their preferred theory, but ultimately the only proof is in their own dogmatic attitude. Gravity is what they say it is simply because that is what they choose to believe, and they will not accept an alternative theory. "Overwhelming evidence" proving a theory isn't really that overwhelming if scientists also admit that have only uncovered a small fraction of what lies out in the universe that exists beyond our own limited perception of the moment.

The expression of scientific thought, as with Scripture, is often subject to the perceptions and dogmatism of those doing the interpretation. For years, dinosaurs were great, lumbering ancestors of modern geckos, monitor lizards and other reptiles. Now popular scientific opinion is they were more closely related to avians than reptiles. Did the evidence that led to the first dogmatic views of dinosaurs change? No, but as some new evidence came to light, the perception of that evidence evolved within those viewing it.

If you could ask a dinosaur what he was, reptile or avian, he would say he is just a dinosaur.

So the expression of science, as with spirituality, is very much dependent on the perception of those who believe either one, or the other, or both to be purveyors of truth. Since that perception is imperfect, so to is the expression of truth human beings rely on to communicate what they perceive in either scientific or spiritual matters.

What I am saying is that in my opinion, scientific dogma is just as flawed an approach to truth as religious dogma: both assume the "believer" is perfect and has an unimpeachable reference point upon which their dogma is based. Since our reference points themselves are more or less subjective (because we choose them through conscious decision), at least some part of what we state to be truth is also subjective.

Dogma is therefore subjective in essence, not to mention expression.

That being the case, being dogmatic regarding science is simply the other side of the coin of being dogmatic about spiritual matters. Since both disciplines involve an imperfect, or incomplete, knowledge of the universe, neither can become so dogmatic as to disqualify the other as part of a world view or perception of the universe.

Science and spirituality are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. It's only in the mind of dogmatic individuals (no matter how intelligent they may be) that the two come into opposition. People who say one disqualifies the other from expressing truth, or that one can only believe in one or the other, are basing this opinion on their subjective dogma, not on the evidence each presents as to the nature of the universe and the existence of a Creator.

Raising Objections Is Not Enough

There's a lot of criticism of callous rich people out there. From well-researched, well-written articles and editorials to scathing memes to trite tweets, all sorts of people in “the other 99%” (along with a few in the 1% who really do care about the rest of us) are pointing out the destructive behavior of the very wealthy and the corporations they run.

The main problem I see with all these creative jabs at the 1% is this: they don't care what we think.

In their world, we are beneath them. We, their employees and customers, serve only to make them wealthy. We work for them to support ourselves and our families, but in their minds we work for them to increase their profits. If we become sick, or are injured, it means profits from drugs and medical care. If we have children, it means profits from all the things we must buy to raise them. If we send them to college so they can hopefully find a career they love, it means more profits for the school and probably the student loan brokers. When we grow old, and our children put us in a care facility, it again means profits.

Very seldom does the real human factor in how they view us come into play. If it did, if they cared, they would reduce their profit margins in order to make things such as health care, homes, food, and a good education both better quality and more affordable for the most number of people.

What matters to them is their wealth and power. They only associate with those like themselves. They are an exclusive segment of society, patting each other on their collective backs for being who they are, achieving what they have achieved and having what they have. Their collective goals in life are wealth and power, and so each of them has plenty of like-minded people around, so they can look at each other and tell each other they are successful people and those who object to their greed and power-mongering and corrupting influence are simply jealous.

We are the little people who serve the 1% because we deserve our station and life and they deserve theirs. Never mind myths about how hard they worked to get there. Many achieved their status merely by being born into it. This is part of the reason why some of them are so elitist: they believe it's a gift from God that they were born wealthy, and with few exceptions the idea that God wants them to use that wealth to benefit all of mankind never enters their minds.

They love the Machiavellian concept that those who are smart and capable enough to rule become rulers over those less capable, by divine mandate, and that those they rule serve those who rule, not the other way around. This is why they have no hesitation in corrupting our elected officials and distorting the system in order to favor themselves. To the 1%, that's the natural order of things.

Even when they engage in philanthropy, most of the time it's for things such as museums or arts programs which will mostly benefit themselves and others wealthy and "cultured" enough to partake of the results of their philanthropy. It's a laughable event when Forbes and Fortune magazine run articles on philanthropy among billionaires, and we read that most of it consists of endowing a college library or donating artwork to a museum, with very little done to relieve the suffering of the needy. But these article commend the donors for their generosity, as though giving a few million dollars out of their billions is a great sacrifice.

There are wealthy people who give to charities such as children's hospitals, scholarships and other programs to help primarily lower and middle class people. Some support environmental organizations which in turn help the entire human race. Sadly, these are in the minority.

Yet, even when they do give, the majority give only 1% to 2% of their income. Sure, to the average person a donation of $1.5 million to a scholarship fund for underprivileged children seems like a lot of money. However, when the donation comes from someone with a net worth of a billion dollars or more, it's a paltry sum. Plus it's tax deductible, so in the end they aren't really out any money. It's a scenario not unlike the story Jesus told about the rich man and the widow. He commended the widow for giving the few pennies she had, not the rich man for giving thousands.

So, if the people in the 1% strata don't care what the 99% think, why am I bringing it up? Because I care what the 99% thinks, but even more importantly, I care about what we do. Just writing articles pointing out the problem isn't enough. I'm not saying we should stop pointing out the issues, but we need to make sure in doing so we also suggest solutions.

In war, a key to victory is disrupting he enemies supply lines. That's why, during World War 2, major bombing missions targeted factories, supply stores and train depots, rather than front line military targets. A strafing run which destroyed a train carrying food or ammunition did as much, if not more, to defeat the enemy than an attack on front line. Front line troops don't fight well if they lack food or ammunition. Even if they have plenty of bullets, lack of the beans will destroy morale: demoralized troops are more likely to surrender or run away from a battle.

I bring up the war analogy because we are engaged in class warfare, whether we believe it or not. Like most wars, it's not intended to destroy a populace so much as control it and so exploit the resources of the populace, including the people themselves. The 1% want to maintain control over us because we are their source of profits. Take us out of the picture and their world comes crashing down as profits disappear, and the sense of power gained through their wealth is lost.

Certainly we can't commit mass suicide just to spite the 1%. We can, however, stop feeding the Beast. We can look for ways to stop adding to the profits of those corporations, and their owners, which are the worst offenders when it comes to the matter of how they treat human beings. We can reward those corporations and wealthy individuals who truly support their workers and try to help mankind.

Some ideas:

• Shop locally instead of big, national chains. The prices may be higher, but not that much higher. Also, you will be making sure the money you spend helps members of your own community more. Most of it stays in the community rather than being funneled up a system that rewards a CEO far more than he or she is actually worth. If you are going to shop at a chain store, choose Costco or Aldi or other smaller chains which offer decent pay and benefits. Buying from locally owned businesses is all about beneficial relationships, as well, and you will find that making friends with the people who actually own the store reaps many benefits the big chain stores don't offer.
• Resist “consumeritis”. Do you really need that 52” TV while the 42” one is still working fine? Do you really need that premium cable package when you really only watch 6 channels? Is the need for a new car genuine, or just a matter that you are bored with the one you have? Are there shoes or clothes sitting in your closet that you haven't worn in over 6 months, season permitting? We are bombarded at many levels with a deluge of ads, articles and other things intended to make us think we can only be happy if we accumulate enough “stuff”. This simply isn't true: there is much research indicating that people who simplify their lifestyles are much happier than those who get caught up in rampant consumerism.
• Buy modestly. If you really do need that new TV, buy from a local dealer, or even a pawn shop. Local dealers are often willing to “horse trade” and negotiate a price below the one on the tag. You can walk out of the store with the TV, knowing that the few dollars extra you spent is helping someone in your town feed his family or save up for his daughter's college education. Pawn shops are great places to buy electronics, cameras, tools and especially jewelry. If you take the time to inspect the item, and do a little negotiating, you can walk out with nearly new items at a fraction of the retail price. To save on clothing, housewares, even furniture, try Goodwill, Salvation Army or local consignment and second hand stores. I bought a $300 coat at Goodwill for $8. It had hardly been worn: it looked brand new.
• A healthy lifestyle means big savings. Buying locally pays off in another way. If you buy as much local produce as you can, you are probably going to eat more healthfully than buying from a chain grocer. Also, taking the time to prepare you own food, using as much fresh produce and “naturally” raised meats as possible, is good for you. Being healthier means less likelihood of illness, which means less money spent on doctor visits and medications. Consider that reducing cancer risk or preventing a heart attack or diabetes, are much less costly than treating them.
• Garden. Growing your own vegetables is healthier, and cheaper, than buying produce at the grocer. It's not that hard, and with creative container gardening, even apartment dwellers can find some savings, even if it's just through growing fresh herbs in a window container. It's also a great way to get you outside and connected with the earth.
• Explore alternatives. As with the above topic of healthy lifestyle, there are a lot of herbs that can be introduced into the diet that can prevent, reduce, or even eliminate, the need for certain pharmaceuticals. For instance, turmeric used regularly in foods can eliminate a lot of inflammation for which people normally take ibuprofen or aspirin. (Always check with your doctor regarding serious conditions. Doctors much prefer diabetes be controlled by diet and exercise, rather than drugs, but will still want to monitor your blood sugar level until it stabilizes enough to be assured drugs are no longer necessary). Coops and bartering are other ways to save money. Need your washer repaired? Maybe you could get it repaired at “no cost” by trading a skill you have, or an unwanted item, with a member of a coop or bartering exchange?
• Reduce waste by learning to recycle/upcycle. The internet has a wealth of free information about how to turn broken or unwanted items into something else that you do want or need. For instance: old tires combined with a few cans of spray paint can become attractive planters or garden barriers, or even delightful toys. We are using old pallets for things such as the platform for a storage shed, fencing and building garden containers.
• Get off the grid as much as possible. Learning to reduce energy use not only saves money but helps preserve the earth. There are plenty of ideas to be found on the internet or in the library. Charge your phone while driving, rather than plugging it into a wall socket at home. Small, self-installed solar power systems are getting cheaper every year. They may not take you completely off grid, but they can reduce the need for utility supplied electricity. Passive systems can heat a home very well if done right. If zoning allows, you can install a wind system that further reduces the need to pay for electricity that usually depends on fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. One idea I plan on doing next winter is to make small space heaters out of flower pots, carriage bolts and washers and a candle. Placed near a computer desk or in a small room, they can provide enough heat, without electricity or gas, to replace a conventional space heater in some cases and help reduce the need for using whole house heat at a certain level.
• Vote for the right candidates. Don't just vote your party of choice based on a couple of issues you prefer. Do some research, think about the greater picture, the impact a candidate's actions will have on all of us, and our children and grandchildren rather than what you believe will give an immediate solution to your personal concerns. Don't be afraid to vote third party. Use your right to vote to send a message to leaders who cater to the wealthy and corporations that you want those who will stand firm in support a government that is truly by the People, of the People and for the People.

Alternate Reality

J.E.B. Stuart was a "Master of the Telecaster". He was the lead guitarist and backing vocalist for a seminal Equestrian Blues group, "The Generals of Jam". He formed the group along with his friend Robert E. Lee (rhythm guitar, lead vocals) due to their combined interest in blues-based rock and horseback riding.  It was a unique and months long path from obscurity to fame and fortune, but the story is not all that uncommon.

Originally the two formed a country duo named simply "Lee and Stuart", with Lee on banjo and Stuart on acoustic guitar.After some moderate success in Lee's hometown of Arlington, VA, they headed to Nashville TN to seek a record contract. However, once there they received little recognition or work during this initial period, despite Lee's excellent banjo technique and enchanting vocals and Stuart's exemplary flat picking skills. Their manager Jefferson "The Prez" Davis, pointed out that male country duos were a dime a dozen in "Music City U.S.A, and that they had no original songs to offer. As a result they were far overshadowed by Flatt and Scruggs, among others, and their manager insisted they should find a gimmick to differentiate themselves from that legendary duo.

Both of them were avid equestrians, skilled riders since childhood. So, after watching a Gene Autry marathon, the pair decided to pursue a radically different approach to their act. They began playing and singing while sitting on horse back. Initially, the gimmick garnered a lot of attention, but soon the novelty wore off as people realized their act consisted of simply doing Flatt and Scruggs covers while on horseback. 

The addition of the horses also limited the available performance venues, as many of the Nashville bars that hired unknown groups had no room for the horses. After the infamous "Road Apple Incident" at the Bluegrass Inn, work in the local bars was impossible to find.

As a result Lee and Stuart were forced to perform almost exclusively at county fairs, equestrian events, mall openings and monster truck rallies. It was at one of the latter events that they met Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, an erstwhile rock drummer who was earning a modicum of fame by warming up truck rally crowds with his unusual act. He would allow trucks to jump over him while he played Charlie Watts covers. He earned the nickname "Stonewall" because he was oblivious to the constant torrent of soda cans and beer bottles that bombarded him during his performances.

 Lee, Stuart and Jackson hit it off immediately. Jackson also had a love of horses, and was skilled at at least sitting on one un-phased. After hours of discussion and several rounds of Corona Gold, Lee and Stuart made the momentous decision to switch from country to blues based rock (which was, in practical terms, the only way they could add a rock drummer to the act). Lee picked up a 1959 Les Paul Gold Top, and Stuart convinced his cousin to loan him his '64 Telecaster. 

They realized the needed a bass player to round out their sound. They found the perfect match in Nate Forrest, an under-appreciated bassist doing time gigging the hotel circuit with a Donnie Osmond tribute band. Lee, Stuart and Jackson immediately recognized that Forrest's talent was wasted in the group he was with. (Unconfirmed reports state that they hired Forrest after he was kicked out of the Osmond tribute band for falling asleep during a performance of "Soldier of Love" at a bar mitzvah.)

With the addition of Nate Forrest on bass, the group went into seclusion for an entire weekend at the Motel 8 near the Nashville airport, in order to tighten their sound as a group and explore future possibilities as an act. Nate was the one who pointed out that it was problematic adapting Flatt and Scruggs songs to their new format. He showed the other three members his collection of original songs, and they were convinced this was the key to future success.

There was one final obstacle to overcome. The use of battery operated Pignose 7-100 amps made playing electric guitar and bass on horseback manageable. On the other hand, finding a horse willing to let Jackson put his extensive drum kit on its back proved problematic. The solution came when Stonewall switched to a much lighter weight electronic drum kit. 

Next was the challenge of coming up with a name. Their initial choice was "Blues on Traveler", from the name of Lee's beloved stallion, but their agent informed them of the potential trademark violation. So too with their second choice, "The Dixie Hicks". They finally settled on the name which would soon become legendary, "The Generals of Jam". 

This name was chosen because three of the four, Lee, Stuart and Jackson, had all applied for West Point, having dreams of becoming Army generals one day. Forrest had no such military aspirations, but after watching an old video of Paul Revere and the Raiders, he liked the idea of dressing up in period military clothing. Fearing another potential trademark issue if they went with a Revolutionary War theme, they chose the uniforms of Civil War generals instead.

They had name. They had original songs.  They had a sound. They had a gimmick. Now all they needed was a gig. Their agent was quickly able to book them at an upcoming monster truck rally in Knoxville, TN.

Their plan was to play a short set of their original material while sitting calmly on horseback, but history, it seems, had other plans. It was during the group's iconic song "Bowling Stone" that a short developed in Stuart's amp. This irritated his horse, which began trotting back and forth in rhythm to his riffs in an attempt to elude the small shocks he was receiving. Lee and Forrest, believing this to be some new aspect of Stuart's performance, began following suit. The audience went wild over their roughly synchronized dressage in time to a blues number. They demanded an encore, but the band was only contracted for the one song, and the show's director had guaranteed "The Human Bomb" his fair time before the main event, so the audience was disappointed.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Fame came quickly as the band developed exciting and unique dressage routines to compliment their songs. Who can forget not only the iconic "Bowling Stone", but also the equally iconic "Imma King Me (Since We're Playing Checkers)". Their dressage routine to the iconic "I Got My Mower Working" is still unmatched by the many copycat groups that have come and gone. Their Grammy winning iconic song, "See, See, a Ryder Truck" featured dressage so remarkable, fans insisted the group be given a place on the U.S. Olympic Team. Finally, there is no telling how many young people were inspired to take up both guitar and horseback riding by Stuart's phenomenal solo turn in the iconic "Disruption" video.

However, fame often takes a toll on the band members, leading to various problems, and "The Generals of Jam" were no exception. Stonewall's refusal to participate in dressage, but simply sit immobile on his horse, frustrated the other members. They relented when they realized that he did have a nickname to live up to, plus the fact that it was much harder to perform dressage with a drum kit slung about the horse. Still, the tension between Jackson and the other members was there, smoldering, fueled in no small part by Stuart's antics and attitude.

When Jackson died tragically when a drunken roadie backed their horse trailer over him, Stuart especially was devastated. He refused to participate in auditions for Stonewall's replacement, instead engaging in increasingly outrageous behavior. Some blame is involvement in the notorious "Knoxville Drag Queen Fiasco" on his difficulty in dealing with his grief.

Jackson was replaced by Bo Pickett on drums, but the group just wasn't the same. Stuart, especially, was less than thrilled by the presence of Pickett.

Stuart's already flamboyant personality, combined with his grief over Jackson's death (and suspected substance abuse) led to him developing something of a prima donna attitude. "It's me they are all really coming to see" he said during an after show interview at an iconic performance in Fredericksville, VA. Stuart also made other remarks, including some about how he was carrying the rest of the band. He signed to do a solo record without first informing the rest of the band, leaving them wondering about his plans for the future. All of this greatly increased tensions within the group.

Lee, always the gentlemanly leader, did his best to smooth things out, but the last straw was when Stuart showed up late for a festival in Gettysburg, PA. Though he arrived in time to play their set, and performed admirably, his reputation with the his mates was irretrievably damaged. 

The Generals of Jam began struggling. They were overdue on their second album, but spent little time in the studio. Forrest's songwriting efforts seemed fruitless. Stuart became increasingly difficult to handle. Pickett added to problems by often failing to play songs correctly during concerts. They managed to put out a single, "There's a Booger in My Chili", but it flopped on the charts, further discouraging the band.

The final nail in the coffin for "The Generals of Jam" came when Stuart was shot and killed during an argument with John Huff in Old Yeller's Tavern, a Disney themed restaurant near Richmond. With the loss of their lead guitarist, the remaining band members lost direction. The group broke up a few months later.

Yet, the legacy of "The Generals of Jam" is not to be forgotten. Though they were only active a scant 4 years, they produced an album filled of iconic songs of their genre. Their full length concert video, "Gimme Halter" stands as one of the all time iconic blues dressage performance videos by any group, ever. Streets and stables are named after the group and individual members. An autographed pile of horse poo sits enshrined at Nashville's Hard Rock Cafe.

 Several tribute groups have sprung up (most notably Seattle's "Nervous Anna") to keep the legacy of one of musics most iconic groups alive into the foreseeable future.

NOTE: Maybe this is the result of binge watching "Sliders" on Netflix in between practicing guitar. 

Rand Paul: The Divinely Mandated President?

Senator Rand Paul is strongly in favor of mountaintop removal mining, saying it "isn't so bad" and the results actually enhance the value of the land, "because now you can build on it".* The impact on the environment is unimportant to him compared to the supposed economic advantages (meaning profits for the coal mining companies that supported his run for the Senate, and will likely put millions toward his run for president).

Known for his honesty, Sen. Paul recently revealed that after many prayerful nights, and consultation with other Republican Christians such as Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Sarah Palin, he has uncovered a message from God in the the Holy Bible that he says proves that all Christians should vote for him for president in 2016.

Rand Paul maintains that verses such as Genesis 22.14 "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided"; Zechariah 14:4 "On that day his feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives...will split apart...for half the mountain will move toward the north and half toward the south."; Revelation 8:8 "...a great mountain of fire was thrown into the sea." and many others are part of a "secret Bible code" revealing that God favors him for his support of mountaintop mining.

"The Bible makes it clear that God likes to destroy mountains as a sign. It is a major sign of the return of the Messiah. I think I am in good standing for my support of mountaintop removal mining" said Sen. Paul.

The committee of Ryan, Boehner and Palin agrees. Sen. Paul chose these three individuals to research and validate his position because, as he put it, "each member of my research committee-Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Sarah Palin-is known not only for their unmatched intellects and reputations for accurate research, but their outstanding displays of Christian values. They approached researching my claim with the same level-headedness and unbiased objectivity as they do any other political issue they face. I wanted them to be completely, brutally honest with me, as I am with my colleagues and with voters"

When questioned about the qualifications of two senators and a former governor to investigate claims of a secret Bible code, Paul responded by saying "They are good Christian people. The First Amendment guarantees they can know as much about the Bible as any Theology professor or church pastor."

Sen. Paul feels this makes voting for him for president in 2016 an open and shut case. "For anyone claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian, the choice is obvious since Scripture makes it plain God favors me as the best candidate for President of the United States. Jews should probably vote for me too, but forget about Muslims".

Tea Party leaders were quick to rally in support of Rand Paul's allegations. "Jesus would have loved to have preached the Sermon on the Mount from a mountaintop leveled by coal mining", said Sarah Palin at a recent Tea Party rally. "His compassion for the people would have led him to say 'Hey, Peter, that mountain over there is flat and shorter than these other ones. It will be easier for everyone to climb and find a seat to watch me preach. It will be easier to pass out food as well.'"

When asked about how Jesus might feel about the environmental impact, such as the destruction of habitat for animals, Palin was quick to respond, "God was always commanding someone to sacrifice an animal on top of a mountain, so in fact Jesus would approve of killing or displacing a few critters in order to improve the lives of people."

What about issues of water supplies being contaminated by coal dust runoff? Palin has an answer for that too: "There's these verses, you know, where Jesus said that we will be able to drink poison and it won't hurt us. No faithful Christian should be afraid of a little coal sludge in their drinking water. Then you gotta consider that whole changing water into wine thing."

Many conservative Christian leaders were ecstatic. "Rand Paul has made telling our congregations how to vote in 2016 much easier. No longer do we have to use metaphors, innuendo or vague statements to tell our sheep who to vote for. Rand Paul has done it for us with no risk to our 5019(c)(3) status", said The Big Old Church That Rocks pastor Hannover DeLucre.

Not to be out done, New Jersey Governor and one time 2016 presidential hopeful John Christie has tried to salvage his chances of running for the highest office in the land by citing Bible verses as well. It hasn't been easy, as the only verse he has come up with yet has been Job 11:16: "You will forget your misery. It will all be gone like water under a bridge".


Remember, it IS April 1st.


* From The Huffington Post August 2010

The War on Our Children, Part 1: Making Mothers Second Class Citizens

It's important to understand that what I am going to discuss is derived from a North American Indigenous world view. More specifically, a Mohawk world view, admittedly subject to the unavoidable influence of the Western society which has colonized the Mohawk along with every other indigenous group on the continent. This means there are going to be some inevitable dissonances between what I speak of as normal and what is accepted as normal by those with the Western, Colonist world view.

Modern American Society's war on our children starts long before they are even born. Various factors have combined to create a status quo in which couples feel compelled to bring children into a family in which both parents are working outside the home. In such couples, career success is often a higher priority than a successful family. For some this is because they have been convinced that to properly raise and provide for children, they must have successful careers in order to provide the “good things” in life.

For middle class and lower income families, the pressure to adopt a “working parents” model is almost insurmountable. For some people, it is the siren's song of material possessions: we are indoctrinated into the idea that our happiness depends on better houses, cars, clothes, appliances etc. For others, the “good life” is out of reach and both parents must work simply to provide basic necessities. In either case, it has become not just normal for both parents to work outside the home, it's developed into something of a sociological imperative.

Many years ago, then First Lady Hilary Clinton raised the ire of many conservative-minded people with a comment about how she could have stayed home and baked cookies, but decided to pursue a career instead. The implication of her words were that women who chose to focus their efforts on raising children and providing a good household for their husbands were somehow inferior to women who pursued a career.

While this may seem like a feminist position, I view it as just the opposite: this attitude of career being superior to raising children is imposed upon women and society by patriarchy. It's stating quite plainly that “man's work” (managing a bank or fighting fires or being a surgeon) is of more intrinsic value than nurturing children. This is not to say I don't think women should have the right to pursue any career they want, and earn equal pay for equal work. Rather, it is pointing out that a patriarchal-influenced set of values has been imposed upon what sort of work a woman does to be considered a success.

The result is that during the most important period of our children's lives, they are handed over to day care workers and schools for 50% or more of their waking hours.

It's ironic that in many wealthy families where the woman has no pressure to pursue a career outside the home, she does stay at home, yet hires a nanny or au pair to care for her own children. As such, the mother becomes an adjunct to her own role as mother/nurturer/comforter/educator. This isn't the case with all wealthy people, of course, but it is considered a normal family situation by those who do engage in this practice out of choice, rather than necessity.

All this is not to say that the situation regarding working mothers is the sole shortcoming of modern family structures. The role of fathers or other male figures in a child's life has also been dramatically altered in the past couple of centuries.

For the first hundred years or so of U.S. history, the majority of families worked farms, crafts shops, small stores or other means of support which allowed the family to remain together the majority of time. Fathers worked within the homestead, or close by. At an early age children became involved in the family trade, as it was expected they would at some point inherit and sustain the family farm or business. As such, children had a great deal more contact with their fathers than is the case for most today. Not only that, but the contact with their fathers was directly involved in teaching and demonstrating to the children skills needed to prosper in life.

As well as having more contact with fathers, and that contact being in a cooperative, instructional context, grandparents often shared the homestead and so were directly involved in the process of raising children. In some cases, aunts and uncles who shared in maintaining the family farm or business also contributed to raising children. The result was that most children had several adults who shared in raising them, and served as a variety of role models for the children to learn from and develop life long skills and habits (both good and bad).

Even when children were sent to schools, the scheduling of classes revolved around tending the farm, or helping to work the shop or store. It was understood that a school education was an adjunct to what the children learned at home, not a replacement or substitute for it. It was also intended to offer opportunities for vocations apart from working the family business. Not all businesses lent themselves to being inherited by more than one child. Also, it was simply a matter of social fairness to facilitate a person choosing to become a doctor or teacher or accountant rather than a farmer or cooper.

In the U.S. the combination of immigration and the Industrial Revolution led to drastic changes in the family structure. For various reasons, people chose to work in factors or related vocations rather than farms or family businesses. Cities grew to the point where eventually the urban population exceeded the non-urban population for the first time in history. To support a growing population that did not provide itself with food and other goods directly, industries were created and expanded. This accelerated the loss of self-sufficiency which contributed directly to the drastic changes in family structure.

Coupled with these natural changes to the socio-economic structure in the U.S. (the shift from rural, agrarian based economy to urban, industrial based economy) was a determined effort by those same industries to create a “Consumerist Society” in which a growing emphasis was placed on materialism as a source of happiness and proof of success. The image of the Ideal American Family came to involve houses, clothes, cars, and other “stuff” that was much more than a family actually needed to flourish in life. As the relationships within the family began to suffer due to less time spent functioning as a family, consumerist goals were set in place to fill the “contentment gap”.

It's difficult enough to maintain an optimal family structure when a father may be forced to spend the majority of his children's waking hours at his job. It becomes even more problematic if the mother, too, is in the same situation. As noted earlier, in a growing number of situations, this is not by choice of the parents, but by necessity. Still, we also need to consider how many working mothers do so not because their families can't have a decent life without the second income, but merely because the mother has been conditioned by society to think that being a stay-at-home mom is somehow failing to find fulfillment as a human being. Both parents need to consider whether their individual career pursuits are going to be worth the potential costs to raising their children (assuming they have thought through the idea that raising children is not for their own fulfillment as parents alone, but more on that in Part 2).

All of which brought us to the place in history where our society treats children as objects of affection, potential consumers and exploitable resources, but rarely as the young human beings they actually are. As a society we have been conditioned to think that it is normal for the average child to have spent a third of his life under the direct supervision and nurture of strangers, non-family members who may or may not share the same spiritual, moral and ethical views as the family. We have even created a situation in which teachers or social workers can use their own subjective views of what constitutes a “stable family environment” to determine if a child is at risk.

By creating a socio-economic structure in which a majority of parents are forced to work outside the home, thus spending less time with their children than they should, we have brought about a mixed blessing. Yes, we have achieved unprecedented economic growth and opportunity. Children who might otherwise have not considered pursuing certain careers do so thanks to experiences in the educational system. Yet the price we pay for these successes is a growth in dysfunctional families as well as adults who have a skewed understanding of parenting as well as values that don't necessarily correlate to raising future generations to be wholly functioning human beings.

Next: War on Our Children, Part 2: Little Grown Ups