My wonderful and beautiful daughter related a story several years ago when she was in med school in San Diego, California. She, and several of her girlfriends, who were in UCSD’s Medical School with her, were at a gathering, involved with wine no doubt, and discussing what was their success based on; in other words these fourteen or fifteen young women were trying to figure out how come, or what was the basic reason for their success in school, particularly getting into med school, their obvious success in undergraduate school, and why their dreams and aspirations were set towards a relatively high bar. It was interesting to hear her response based on that conversation. The common denominator that they all came up with was that their parents had stayed together. She, my daughter, also followed up with an even more base line—that because we had all stayed together, they, including my daughter (although there were some teenage years that I wanted to….er, never mind) felt safe, secure and at the core, loved.
That got me to thinking. Before we can know God and Christ the face of God which is love, we need to know that we are secure and loved by those who we can experience in a material way. Does that mean that any who do not have the blessings of these women not succeed? Absolutely not. But the pathway seems to be more “secure”, or maybe more readily available according to them.
And then I started pondering my own life. Marilyn and I have been married for almost thirty-three years. Not that I’m any great success, or that we are any great success, but what success I do claim does also come from parents who stayed together—through thick and thin—and this year they are celebrating in August their sixtieth wedding anniversary. My in-laws are well over fifty years, and after counting on my fingers and toes how old Marilyn is, well over fifty-six years of marriage. And my grandparents on both my father’s and mother’s side had both well over fifty years of marriage; and the same with Marilyn’s grandparents. Is there something to that? And is it, a good and holy marriage, worth it? I believe an emphatic ‘yes’ for a number of reasons.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Natural Law Part VI
Revelation is the Foundation of Natural Law
Pope Benedict XVI places the philosophy, or reality for that matter, of ‘relativism’ as ‘the’ dictatorship on the human spirit. ‘Relativism’ is not objective but is rooted in ‘individualism’ which is based on power rather than justice.
In the search for Truth, God, St. Thomas Aquinas asks whether philosophy is enough. His answer is not surprising, or maybe in some circles it is, but basically states that we need ‘revelation’ from God.
Hans Kelson, a legal positivist, makes the statement that man cannot know what justice is therefore any law enacted is valid. He continues that there is no Natural Law because, according to him, any concept of Natural Law is essentially religious in character. Two problems with that are a) the great philosophers, i.e. Plato particularly, was an agnostic b) because something is rooted or it’s essential character is religious in character does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. One has to identify, as we have discussed previously, the law giver.
What has God told us about himself? This is what’s termed ‘revelation’. Through particularly the New and Old Testaments, He refers and infers to his Trinitarian Being; three distinct Persons in one Godhead. That statement is beyond reason but not necessarily at odds with reason or inconsistent with reason. The three great mysteries of the Catholic Faith are 1) The Trinity 2) The Incarnation—two natures in one being/person, and 3) and God’s foreknowledge or how God knows what we’re going to do tomorrow and how that comes into play and is consistent with our free will.
God is eternal, for all eternity. He, the Father, is profoundly bound to the “Word”, Christ, and to the Spirit from and for all eternity. We know this through ‘revelation’. The life of the Trinity is a life of love. Does God have a social life? You bet. It has to be because God’s life is one of love and of relationship. He chose to create. The first creation was of angels. Sharing is the life of the Trinity; one cannot love unless one has the power not to love. Love is an act of the will. Love, agape, is of “self giving”, ultimately of self emptying. It is not about feeling good or romantic although at times that can be part of love. But in its essence, love is about choosing, an act of the will. The first sin ever committed was by the angels. Non servium. ‘We will not serve.’ It is also the beginning of ‘hell’. There is no second chance because they, the angels, had clarity of intellect, of thought. They were fixed in their hatred of God and freely chose not to be a part of Him, their Creator.
God created man, Adam and Eve. He created them so that they could share in the life of the Trinity, a life of love. They had natural gifts: the body, intellect, the will, etc. They also had preternatural gifts: they didn’t get sick, death wasn’t a factor, didn’t have to study for knowledge. And finally they had supernatural gifts: sharing in the life of the Trinity to the end of time.
When ‘supernatural’ is talked about, it means that human beings have a nature; they are also given freedom to act above their nature, i.e. ‘supernatural’. The reward or goal is the sharing in the life of the Trinity. That ‘supernatural’ gift requires us as defined by God, that we love Him, that we recognize God as God. The first commandment is to love God above all.
Adam and Eve’s intellect becomes darkened, disordered when they disobeyed. They were in rebellion against “Love”, which is the nature of God. The human race suffers throughout history because of this one act, although not unjustly. (A father gives his son a commandment. ‘If you don’t drink until you’re twenty-one I will give you a million dollars. The son doesn’t keep the commandment and his inheritance is forfeited.)
Then God gave the human race a second chance. Just as a little boy might break somebody’s window the question that arises is “sorry” or “being sorry” enough? No, one has to repair the damage. Reparations AND redemption. That also begets the question of who can make up for the ‘sin’ of man? Who can make reparation to God? One measures offense by the dignity of the person offended. God is infinite. Who has the capacity to make up for an infinite offense? A person who is infinite. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on the nature of man so he could make reparation to God for the sin of man. One person, two natures. Christ claimed to be God and there are only three options we have in how we view Him: a) He was a liar b) He was crazy c) or He told the truth.
The Natural Law comes back to Christ. Christ founded a Church to communicate to us and to help us. He is Truth. “If you know me, keep my commandments”. And the two great commandments from Him are, “to love God with all of your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself”. The commandments of the Old Testament, of Moses, are specifications of the Natural Law. The Natural Law only makes sense in regards to the Law Giver. The Law Giver of the Natural Law is our manufacturer. He has made us for the purpose of making us totally happy, forever.
St. Thomas says that in heaven you have the immediate presence of God; you have the satisfaction of all desires, the company of the blessed, and the certainty that it will never end.
To sum up: God is accessible to reason. We can know Him and He has given us directions, as our manufacturer, on how to get the most out of ourselves. God gave us “directions”, the Ten Commandments, so we can rise above our nature, truly love, and share the life of and in the Trinity.
Pope Benedict XVI places the philosophy, or reality for that matter, of ‘relativism’ as ‘the’ dictatorship on the human spirit. ‘Relativism’ is not objective but is rooted in ‘individualism’ which is based on power rather than justice.
In the search for Truth, God, St. Thomas Aquinas asks whether philosophy is enough. His answer is not surprising, or maybe in some circles it is, but basically states that we need ‘revelation’ from God.
Hans Kelson, a legal positivist, makes the statement that man cannot know what justice is therefore any law enacted is valid. He continues that there is no Natural Law because, according to him, any concept of Natural Law is essentially religious in character. Two problems with that are a) the great philosophers, i.e. Plato particularly, was an agnostic b) because something is rooted or it’s essential character is religious in character does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. One has to identify, as we have discussed previously, the law giver.
What has God told us about himself? This is what’s termed ‘revelation’. Through particularly the New and Old Testaments, He refers and infers to his Trinitarian Being; three distinct Persons in one Godhead. That statement is beyond reason but not necessarily at odds with reason or inconsistent with reason. The three great mysteries of the Catholic Faith are 1) The Trinity 2) The Incarnation—two natures in one being/person, and 3) and God’s foreknowledge or how God knows what we’re going to do tomorrow and how that comes into play and is consistent with our free will.
God is eternal, for all eternity. He, the Father, is profoundly bound to the “Word”, Christ, and to the Spirit from and for all eternity. We know this through ‘revelation’. The life of the Trinity is a life of love. Does God have a social life? You bet. It has to be because God’s life is one of love and of relationship. He chose to create. The first creation was of angels. Sharing is the life of the Trinity; one cannot love unless one has the power not to love. Love is an act of the will. Love, agape, is of “self giving”, ultimately of self emptying. It is not about feeling good or romantic although at times that can be part of love. But in its essence, love is about choosing, an act of the will. The first sin ever committed was by the angels. Non servium. ‘We will not serve.’ It is also the beginning of ‘hell’. There is no second chance because they, the angels, had clarity of intellect, of thought. They were fixed in their hatred of God and freely chose not to be a part of Him, their Creator.
God created man, Adam and Eve. He created them so that they could share in the life of the Trinity, a life of love. They had natural gifts: the body, intellect, the will, etc. They also had preternatural gifts: they didn’t get sick, death wasn’t a factor, didn’t have to study for knowledge. And finally they had supernatural gifts: sharing in the life of the Trinity to the end of time.
When ‘supernatural’ is talked about, it means that human beings have a nature; they are also given freedom to act above their nature, i.e. ‘supernatural’. The reward or goal is the sharing in the life of the Trinity. That ‘supernatural’ gift requires us as defined by God, that we love Him, that we recognize God as God. The first commandment is to love God above all.
Adam and Eve’s intellect becomes darkened, disordered when they disobeyed. They were in rebellion against “Love”, which is the nature of God. The human race suffers throughout history because of this one act, although not unjustly. (A father gives his son a commandment. ‘If you don’t drink until you’re twenty-one I will give you a million dollars. The son doesn’t keep the commandment and his inheritance is forfeited.)
Then God gave the human race a second chance. Just as a little boy might break somebody’s window the question that arises is “sorry” or “being sorry” enough? No, one has to repair the damage. Reparations AND redemption. That also begets the question of who can make up for the ‘sin’ of man? Who can make reparation to God? One measures offense by the dignity of the person offended. God is infinite. Who has the capacity to make up for an infinite offense? A person who is infinite. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on the nature of man so he could make reparation to God for the sin of man. One person, two natures. Christ claimed to be God and there are only three options we have in how we view Him: a) He was a liar b) He was crazy c) or He told the truth.
The Natural Law comes back to Christ. Christ founded a Church to communicate to us and to help us. He is Truth. “If you know me, keep my commandments”. And the two great commandments from Him are, “to love God with all of your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself”. The commandments of the Old Testament, of Moses, are specifications of the Natural Law. The Natural Law only makes sense in regards to the Law Giver. The Law Giver of the Natural Law is our manufacturer. He has made us for the purpose of making us totally happy, forever.
St. Thomas says that in heaven you have the immediate presence of God; you have the satisfaction of all desires, the company of the blessed, and the certainty that it will never end.
To sum up: God is accessible to reason. We can know Him and He has given us directions, as our manufacturer, on how to get the most out of ourselves. God gave us “directions”, the Ten Commandments, so we can rise above our nature, truly love, and share the life of and in the Trinity.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Role of Government
The Role of Government
The role of government should be as a minimalist. A small footprint, as small as possible. I have always wondered why it is that people consistently give up their rights of freedom for that of security. And false security at that. I learned a valuable lesson a few years ago when Marilyn and I were traveling in Scotland and by happenstance came upon a falconry. On that, more in a moment.
Why are people willing to give up their freedom for slavery? Because in essence that is what government does—it enslaves. Don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons for government, including police, Special Forces, courts, etc. The list can be endless and yet it, the list (another sort) should end, relatively quickly, and be shorter than not.
Let me mention a couple of stories or allegories, the second referring to the falconry. The first is of a ‘consequence’ from a book most people find applicable and have read at some point during their life experience. Kings Chapter 8, Vs. 1-2: In his old age Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel. His first born was named Joel, his second son, Abijah; they judged at Beer-sheba. His sons did not follow his example but sought illicit gain and accepted bribes, perverting justice. Therefore all the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us.
Now here is where it gets interesting, depending on perspective. Vs 6-9: Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them. He prayed to the Lord, however, who said in answer, “Grant the people’s every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.” As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day, deserting me and worshiping strange gods, so do they treat you too. Now grant their request; but at the same time warn them solemnly and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them.”
Vs 10-22: Samuel delivered the message of the Lord in full to those who were asking him for a king. He told them, “The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers. He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will USE (emphasis is mine) your daughters as ointment-makers, as cooks and as bakers. He will take the best of your fields, vineyards and olive groves, and give them to his officials. He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves. He will take your male and female servants, as well as your BEST (again, emphasis is mine) oxen and your asses, and use them to do his work. He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves. When this takes place, you will complain against the king whom you have chosen, but on that day the Lord will not answer you.”
The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel’s warning and said, “Not so! There must be a king over us. We too must be like other nations, with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare and fight our battles.” When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say, he repeated it to the Lord, who then said to him, “Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them.” Samuel thereupon said to the men of Israel, “Each of you go to his own city.”
Sounds familiar? Sounds like what? Taxes? Conscription? Redistribution of wealth? Power elite? Ruling class? And a whole lot of slavery. Personally, I don’t want to be like other nations. The Founding Fathers of this country obviously designed the government with that concept in mind—a unique experiment never attempted before. The Founding Fathers had no blueprint. Human nature as well as history never fails to forget its bloody lessons, over and over again. Part of that fallen nature thing. Notice that the society in the story ends with what’s going to happen because of a kingship. But it also happened with a judgeship. A society is only as good as its individual members are moral and virtuous.
Government by its nature consistently grows, eating more and more of resources not for what it should be in reality, a servant to the people that it governs, but a process by which it stays in power. The Founding Fathers tried, if not to completely eliminate that process, at least limit it. Once again today the ‘process’ is mirroring history. Why? I think two fold reasons a) people, not just in this country but the rest of the world as well, have forgotten that there is a Creator—because there is a creation. That Creator has created us with not only ‘inalienable rights’ but with inseparable moral obligations that are attached to those rights. b) those obligations are as individual as are the rights. Government is not endowed with having either those ‘rights’ or ‘moral obligations’. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me, ‘…well, Tim, I don’t have to give to that charity or take care of that person because I already do that through paying my taxes. And we can’t take care of that many people anyway.’ Christ never said that the government was to take care of our brothers and sisters. It’s our individual responsibility to do that. If you believe in an afterlife, and most theologies, religions, including paganism (Osiris/Isis…Ra), does, then we are going to be judged as individuals. The Roman Government much less the Holy Roman Empire will not be on the docket. But people will. Interesting studies have been completed by the Pew Foundation, The Heritage Foundation as well as one or two others. These studies have found that there is more than enough food, as one example, to feed all the people that are currently on this earth. The problem is not the bounty of the earth, but the distribution of that bounty or lack thereof. And governments are the least capable of delivering anything, much less bounty, to the people who are in need. I give you as an example every place from Rwanda, to the Sudan, to Russia, to Haiti and to finally, yes, the United States. Since Johnson, in the early sixties, began “The War on Poverty”, with the billions of dollars thrown against the wall to alleviate that problem, there is more poverty today in the United States per capita then there was in nineteen sixty-three. Why is that? The reasons are varied. According to some studies, fifty percent of the money earmarked for the eradication of poverty by the government is gobbled up by the bureaucracy. The next twenty-five percent goes to all forms of corruption from those that are supplying the means and solution to the individual fraud that goes on by people that see a ‘free meal’. Which brings me to the falconry and the second allegory.
A few years ago in northern Scotland, Marilyn and I were driving along a very narrow and windy road. I saw a sign with the words Falconry on it and an arrow pointing towards an even more narrow and windy road. No, that’s not the analogy. We arrived to find out that it was the end of the season and that if we waited for a couple of hours we might be able to see a show if enough people showed up. We decided to leave. But as we were walking away the wife of the falconry guy (what DO you call falconry guys?) said that maybe they could start the show within fifteen minutes. We started to look antsy, especially Marilyn, so they moved it up by ten minutes. Here were these long wooden benches that could probably seat two or three hundred people and there was just Marilyn, myself, and one guy from South Africa in the audience. I was happier than a clam. Or maybe a bald eagle. As a matter of fact the first bird that the falconry guy flew WAS a bald eagle—and American Bald Eagle. I almost got up and started to sing the national anthem. But the grimace from Marilyn, for she knew what I was thinking, stifled not only me rising but more importantly my vocal chords. It wasn’t long though before the falconry guy brought out a little falcon. Yes, just like the one you read about in the days of King John and Robin Hood. The day we arrived there was no wind. And I mean no wind. Absolutely gorgeous at the foothills of the Scottish highlands. The falconry guy had the jerkin on his arm and kept swinging his arm upward. The falcon was having none of it. He, the falcon, looked like he was having a great time riding this leather elevator. Except he wasn’t. He didn’t want to leave the arm because there was no wind. According to the falconry guy this little falcon had to work too hard to fly. The falconry guy spoke lovingly at the falcon. The falconry guy coerced with wild gyrations and frantic movements. And the falcon did not move off that arm. During the entire scene, which by the end the falconry guy was quite embarrassed, the little falcon was screaming at the top of its lungs that he didn’t want to fly. But he wanted to be fed. The falconry guy even tried giving a little bit of chicken to it but that just made the falcon scream all the more and louder. Finally, the falcon just jumped to the ground. And screamed. The falconry guy, with an occasional forlorn glance towards us, the audience, didn’t know quite what to do. Then the light bulb went on. He pulled out a little bit bigger piece of chicken (didn’t look anything like the Colonel’s) and the falcon cut the screaming long enough to once more jump up on his arm and gobble it down (no pun intended). The falconry guy at this point gave up. One of the audience asked (and you can guess who since there were only three of us), “So what are you going to do with the little fellow?” “He’s going to be put back in his cage with half rations and maybe, hopefully, in the next couple of days he’ll fly again. But that depends on the wind. And he’s done this before. But very honestly, folks, he’s getting used to half rations.” I wanted to ask, ‘if you fry up the chicken would that change anything?’ But I didn’t. The ‘ugly American’ thing and all.
And so the conclusion. What kind of lesson did Marilyn walk away with? I’m not sure. But I know what I walked away with. Human nature is not so much different than that little falcon. We need to work, if we can, for our keep. Work lends dignity to everything. Someone, and I can’t remember who, once said, “…work when you’re poor, work when you’re rich, work when you’re tired, when you’re full of energy. Work and continue to work…” Some people get used to handouts. Some people just refuse to work for their keep. Some people are truly in need. Do you think government can tell the difference? Do you think an individual can tell whether one person is truly handicapped and not only needs but deserves some help? One word describes government. Enabling. Ok, possibly two. Dependency. Actually there are five or six that I could use and none of them are positive. If I see a guy in need on a busy corner that says on a cardboard box he needs some help, I’m going to give him a can of food; which I usually keep in my car. Doesn’t matter that he looks perfectly healthy. But if I see him day in and day out I’m probably going to rethink my strategy. I don’t want to have to start calling him ‘Smudja’. That’s that falcon.
Oh, a ‘falconry guy’ is called a falconer. So is a female falconer called a ‘falconetter’?
Alex de Tocqueville, who was a French political thinker, historian and writer, lived between 1805 and 1859 wrote this about the great American experiment, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Says it all, doesn’t it.
The role of government should be as a minimalist. A small footprint, as small as possible. I have always wondered why it is that people consistently give up their rights of freedom for that of security. And false security at that. I learned a valuable lesson a few years ago when Marilyn and I were traveling in Scotland and by happenstance came upon a falconry. On that, more in a moment.
Why are people willing to give up their freedom for slavery? Because in essence that is what government does—it enslaves. Don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons for government, including police, Special Forces, courts, etc. The list can be endless and yet it, the list (another sort) should end, relatively quickly, and be shorter than not.
Let me mention a couple of stories or allegories, the second referring to the falconry. The first is of a ‘consequence’ from a book most people find applicable and have read at some point during their life experience. Kings Chapter 8, Vs. 1-2: In his old age Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel. His first born was named Joel, his second son, Abijah; they judged at Beer-sheba. His sons did not follow his example but sought illicit gain and accepted bribes, perverting justice. Therefore all the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us.
Now here is where it gets interesting, depending on perspective. Vs 6-9: Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them. He prayed to the Lord, however, who said in answer, “Grant the people’s every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.” As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day, deserting me and worshiping strange gods, so do they treat you too. Now grant their request; but at the same time warn them solemnly and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them.”
Vs 10-22: Samuel delivered the message of the Lord in full to those who were asking him for a king. He told them, “The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers. He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will USE (emphasis is mine) your daughters as ointment-makers, as cooks and as bakers. He will take the best of your fields, vineyards and olive groves, and give them to his officials. He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves. He will take your male and female servants, as well as your BEST (again, emphasis is mine) oxen and your asses, and use them to do his work. He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves. When this takes place, you will complain against the king whom you have chosen, but on that day the Lord will not answer you.”
The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel’s warning and said, “Not so! There must be a king over us. We too must be like other nations, with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare and fight our battles.” When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say, he repeated it to the Lord, who then said to him, “Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them.” Samuel thereupon said to the men of Israel, “Each of you go to his own city.”
Sounds familiar? Sounds like what? Taxes? Conscription? Redistribution of wealth? Power elite? Ruling class? And a whole lot of slavery. Personally, I don’t want to be like other nations. The Founding Fathers of this country obviously designed the government with that concept in mind—a unique experiment never attempted before. The Founding Fathers had no blueprint. Human nature as well as history never fails to forget its bloody lessons, over and over again. Part of that fallen nature thing. Notice that the society in the story ends with what’s going to happen because of a kingship. But it also happened with a judgeship. A society is only as good as its individual members are moral and virtuous.
Government by its nature consistently grows, eating more and more of resources not for what it should be in reality, a servant to the people that it governs, but a process by which it stays in power. The Founding Fathers tried, if not to completely eliminate that process, at least limit it. Once again today the ‘process’ is mirroring history. Why? I think two fold reasons a) people, not just in this country but the rest of the world as well, have forgotten that there is a Creator—because there is a creation. That Creator has created us with not only ‘inalienable rights’ but with inseparable moral obligations that are attached to those rights. b) those obligations are as individual as are the rights. Government is not endowed with having either those ‘rights’ or ‘moral obligations’. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me, ‘…well, Tim, I don’t have to give to that charity or take care of that person because I already do that through paying my taxes. And we can’t take care of that many people anyway.’ Christ never said that the government was to take care of our brothers and sisters. It’s our individual responsibility to do that. If you believe in an afterlife, and most theologies, religions, including paganism (Osiris/Isis…Ra), does, then we are going to be judged as individuals. The Roman Government much less the Holy Roman Empire will not be on the docket. But people will. Interesting studies have been completed by the Pew Foundation, The Heritage Foundation as well as one or two others. These studies have found that there is more than enough food, as one example, to feed all the people that are currently on this earth. The problem is not the bounty of the earth, but the distribution of that bounty or lack thereof. And governments are the least capable of delivering anything, much less bounty, to the people who are in need. I give you as an example every place from Rwanda, to the Sudan, to Russia, to Haiti and to finally, yes, the United States. Since Johnson, in the early sixties, began “The War on Poverty”, with the billions of dollars thrown against the wall to alleviate that problem, there is more poverty today in the United States per capita then there was in nineteen sixty-three. Why is that? The reasons are varied. According to some studies, fifty percent of the money earmarked for the eradication of poverty by the government is gobbled up by the bureaucracy. The next twenty-five percent goes to all forms of corruption from those that are supplying the means and solution to the individual fraud that goes on by people that see a ‘free meal’. Which brings me to the falconry and the second allegory.
A few years ago in northern Scotland, Marilyn and I were driving along a very narrow and windy road. I saw a sign with the words Falconry on it and an arrow pointing towards an even more narrow and windy road. No, that’s not the analogy. We arrived to find out that it was the end of the season and that if we waited for a couple of hours we might be able to see a show if enough people showed up. We decided to leave. But as we were walking away the wife of the falconry guy (what DO you call falconry guys?) said that maybe they could start the show within fifteen minutes. We started to look antsy, especially Marilyn, so they moved it up by ten minutes. Here were these long wooden benches that could probably seat two or three hundred people and there was just Marilyn, myself, and one guy from South Africa in the audience. I was happier than a clam. Or maybe a bald eagle. As a matter of fact the first bird that the falconry guy flew WAS a bald eagle—and American Bald Eagle. I almost got up and started to sing the national anthem. But the grimace from Marilyn, for she knew what I was thinking, stifled not only me rising but more importantly my vocal chords. It wasn’t long though before the falconry guy brought out a little falcon. Yes, just like the one you read about in the days of King John and Robin Hood. The day we arrived there was no wind. And I mean no wind. Absolutely gorgeous at the foothills of the Scottish highlands. The falconry guy had the jerkin on his arm and kept swinging his arm upward. The falcon was having none of it. He, the falcon, looked like he was having a great time riding this leather elevator. Except he wasn’t. He didn’t want to leave the arm because there was no wind. According to the falconry guy this little falcon had to work too hard to fly. The falconry guy spoke lovingly at the falcon. The falconry guy coerced with wild gyrations and frantic movements. And the falcon did not move off that arm. During the entire scene, which by the end the falconry guy was quite embarrassed, the little falcon was screaming at the top of its lungs that he didn’t want to fly. But he wanted to be fed. The falconry guy even tried giving a little bit of chicken to it but that just made the falcon scream all the more and louder. Finally, the falcon just jumped to the ground. And screamed. The falconry guy, with an occasional forlorn glance towards us, the audience, didn’t know quite what to do. Then the light bulb went on. He pulled out a little bit bigger piece of chicken (didn’t look anything like the Colonel’s) and the falcon cut the screaming long enough to once more jump up on his arm and gobble it down (no pun intended). The falconry guy at this point gave up. One of the audience asked (and you can guess who since there were only three of us), “So what are you going to do with the little fellow?” “He’s going to be put back in his cage with half rations and maybe, hopefully, in the next couple of days he’ll fly again. But that depends on the wind. And he’s done this before. But very honestly, folks, he’s getting used to half rations.” I wanted to ask, ‘if you fry up the chicken would that change anything?’ But I didn’t. The ‘ugly American’ thing and all.
And so the conclusion. What kind of lesson did Marilyn walk away with? I’m not sure. But I know what I walked away with. Human nature is not so much different than that little falcon. We need to work, if we can, for our keep. Work lends dignity to everything. Someone, and I can’t remember who, once said, “…work when you’re poor, work when you’re rich, work when you’re tired, when you’re full of energy. Work and continue to work…” Some people get used to handouts. Some people just refuse to work for their keep. Some people are truly in need. Do you think government can tell the difference? Do you think an individual can tell whether one person is truly handicapped and not only needs but deserves some help? One word describes government. Enabling. Ok, possibly two. Dependency. Actually there are five or six that I could use and none of them are positive. If I see a guy in need on a busy corner that says on a cardboard box he needs some help, I’m going to give him a can of food; which I usually keep in my car. Doesn’t matter that he looks perfectly healthy. But if I see him day in and day out I’m probably going to rethink my strategy. I don’t want to have to start calling him ‘Smudja’. That’s that falcon.
Oh, a ‘falconry guy’ is called a falconer. So is a female falconer called a ‘falconetter’?
Alex de Tocqueville, who was a French political thinker, historian and writer, lived between 1805 and 1859 wrote this about the great American experiment, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Says it all, doesn’t it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)