Social Media: What I Want

I like looking at Facebook to see silly photos of my friends and my friends’ kids, to find out about food trucks coming to my neighborhood, and to remember people I don’t see very often.

I like looking at Instagram to see beautiful photos of beautiful places where people I may or may not know go on beautiful adventures.

I like looking at Twitter to hear different perspectives about political topics, and other random subjects. 

I like watching YouTube to find recipes for cooking delicious things on the grill, and to watch music performances. 

That’s what I want from social media. Right now, though, every one of the outlets I pay attention to is riddled with posts related to the murder of George Floyd. A similar thing happened with countless other black people who’ve been killed by our society. Social Media erupted. And rightly so. People have a right to be angry, and to express their anger and frustration through the means by which we communicate these days. 

I want my social media feeds to go back to the way they were. And also I’m glad that they’re being disrupted right now. Because from where I sit (white, male, middle-aged, cis-gender, employed, part of a healthy family, and with access to resources … the very definition of a position of great privilege in this society), I need to be disrupted. We all need to be disrupted right now. Because there’s pain and brokenness and suffering and struggle and turmoil and sorrow in our society today … and if we’re not disturbed about that, all we’ll do is perpetuate the problem. 

I want my social media feed to go back to the way I like it. But I hope that doesn’t happen right away. Because if things go back to the way they were before right away, then nothing will have changed. And we need change in our world, in our society, in our nation. 

I really do still want to see silly photos of children, and beautiful photos of outdoor adventure spaces. And at the same time, I want to see our world become more equitable. It's not gonna be easy, though.

The way I see it, this is what my role should be. 1) Shut up, listen to people who have been marginalized by society for centuries, and believe what they say. 2) Call out other white people when they perpetuate racism and hatred, because 400 years of our national history have taught us that white people don't listen to anyone who's not also white. 

It’s not gonna be easy. And it’ll be worth it. 

What I'm Willing to Accept: More Thoughts on Guns in this Nation

I'm not willing to accept that this is just the way things are, the way things are going to be. I'm not willing to believe that we just have to accept occasional massacres as part of the cost of being USAmerican citizens.

I've written on gun violence before on this blog. If you're interested in what I was thinking at the time I wrote, scroll back through the archives. Today, here's what I'm thinking; here's what I believe.

Now, some might say that it's too early after this most recent tragedy to talk about legislation. I disagree, but am willing to concede that it might be too early for some people. OK. I'm willing to wait. Is one week of mourning an adequate amount of time? If so, let's have this conversation starting Monday morning next week. If not, how about one month? Is that enough time to mourn collectively? Then let's schedule the conversation for November 1 (All Saint's Day ... maybe a good day to talk about our nation's propensity to inflict death on one another using firearms).

Regardless of whether it's today, next week, or next month, the conversation needs to happen sooner instead of later. And I, for one, am ready to have the conversation, starting with listening to those with whom I disagree.

This morning I listened to a very articulate conservative talk show host make very reasonable points about gun use and ownership. I listened to him make a well-reasoned argument about the necessity of not increasing the amount of firearms regulation. I appreciated his perspective. His perspective, at least in part, is that the positive of allowing USAmerican citizens the (second amendment) freedom to own weapons outweighs the negative of tragedies like what happened this past weekend in Las Vegas.

I, however, disagree. I believe that gun ownership should be more strongly regulated. Like other constitutional rights that are restricted by certain situations and conditions, the right to own weapons is already restricted. A private citizen, for instance, is not allowed to purchase a fully automatic rifle.

For me, greater restrictions on firearms ownership is better; for the very articulate conservative, less restrictions are better. We both came to our position thoughtfully, and by considering what we believe to be best for our nation. And neither of us, I'd guess, is interested in changing our mind without some kind of significant evidence that counters what we believe in obvious ways.

But I would absolutely be willing to change my opinion if I were faced with good, non-biased, non-partisan, peer-reviewed research indicating that my opinion does not, in fact, lead to a more ideal reality.

At one point in time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded research into gun violence. However, in 1996, Congress withheld funding for that research, and threatened to cut all CDC funding if that agency continued with research into gun violence.

Perhaps the CDC is not the appropriate agency to do this research. OK. How about a different agency, like the National Institute of Justice?

The point is, my opinion will change if good, responsible, scientific, peer-reviewed research shows that my opinion leads to death and not life.

And I'm not willing to accept that there's nothing we can do to decrease gun violence in this country.

So, while I will continue to call for an increase in reasonable restrictions on gun purchases and ownership, I'll also call for federal funding for gun violence research. And if the research indicates that an increase in restrictions is a bad idea, I'll change my opinion.

But without the research, we have nothing but our opinions.

$0.02

Gun Laws - Some More Thoughts

We have a problem in our country. Well, we have lots of problems, but the one I want to address is the problem we have with people being killed as a result of gunfire.

In this country, since the Sandy Hook school massacre, there have been by some counting methods over 900 mass shootings. Of course, some will argue that we should use different counting methods, which gives us a number between 140 and 150.

During that same time period, there are by some counts over 32,000 people killed in this country by gunfire.

Those numbers are too big. No matter which numbers you use, those numbers are too big. Too many people are being killed by gunfire in this country - the statistics are comparable to some countries that are experiencing armed conflict (war).

I'm not interested in parsing the numbers. Maybe the ones I found online are off, and maybe you have better data. If we're going to parse numbers, the first questions I'm interested in asking would be, "How many people being killed by gunfire in this country is acceptable?"

Now as soon as we start talking about how many people die by gunfire, the conversation moves to the second amendment to the US Constitution (the assumption being, apparently, that government is planning to take away everyone's firearms). Of course, we'll have disagreements on the interpretation of the second amendment, particularly whether the right to keep and bear arms stands on its own, or whether that right in inextricably linked to the establishment of a well-regulated militia.

Then what happens is that individuals and groups seem to get entrenched in their position, calling for either more restrictions on firearm purchases and ownership or stating vehemently that we already have enough gun laws.

Fine. We disagree with each other. This is not the first time that's happened in anyone's life. Remember kindergarten? Remember learning how to negotiate the use of that one particular toy that two of you wanted? Some of us simply learned how to get the toy we wanted by yelling about it, or by simply taking it. On school playgrounds, those children are crybabies or bullies.

Those of us who learned conflict resolution in healthy ways learned how to listen to each other, and how to talk with each other. Surely by the time we get to be adults, we've discovered how to talk and listen, instead of whining and bullying (though to observe Congress, you might not think so).

So, no matter what the numbers are, I think we would all agree that something needs to change in our country in relation to how many people are killed by gunfire. If you don't think thousands of people being killed every year is problematic, you probably didn't read this far anyway.

I would propose the following:

1) Tighten the gunshow loophole. Set a limit on how many guns an individual is able to sell before they are categorized as a dealer. Maybe the number is 5 guns per month. Maybe it's 20 guns per year. Maybe it's a different number, but let's put a number to it so that the law actually has some teeth.

2) Restrict the sale of assault style and military style weapons. Unless a person is part of an assault team, or is in the military, I don't understand what reasonable use they'd have for that kind of weapon. And since we already restrict what kinds of firearms a person can own (I don't think it's legal for me to own anti-aircraft weaponry), this restriction is simply one of degree, not kind.

3) Restrict the size of ammunition magazines that citizens are permitted to own. If a person is truly and honestly worried about nine rounds not being enough to deter an intruder into their home, they either need better training in the use of firearms, or they have a reason to need police protection.

4) Require licensing, registration, training, and insurance for all gun owners. We do it for automobiles, we should be able to do that for firearms. Obviously some people wouldn't be able to pass the training. Some people don't pass driver's training either.

We don't allow those people to drive because we, as a society, have determined that they're not able to do so safely. If a person can't pass the training, they probably can't safely own a firearm ... and so probably shouldn't.

Obviously the simple fact of passing laws isn't going to force everyone to follow them. However, the reason we pass laws (ideally) is for the betterment of our society. In this case, I'd propose that we pass these laws in order to keep people safe.

Will everyone follow them? Of course not. We have laws on our books regulating the use of child safety seats in automobiles. Does everyone follow them? Of course not. Did the passage of those laws decrease the number of child deaths in car accidents? Yes it did. And for that reason, the laws are worthwhile.

If passing laws regulating firearms decreases the number of people who die from gunfire, then they're worth passing.

***

Some people, and maybe even some of you my seven readers, may disagree with me. That's fine. In fact, that's encouraged. I'm not so bold as to think I have thought through everything I need to consider. And I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm always right.

So please disagree with me. But instead of simply railing against this (or any other) proposal, I invite you to offer your own opinion about what needs to change. Because obviously something does.

$0.02

Some Thoughts on Ferguson

The decision announced last night to not indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Mr. Michael Brown is no longer only about this one incident, if it ever even was. This incident has become, and is, about the state of race relations in this country that so many of us love.

At the congregation I serve as pastor, we've begun working in earnest to equip folks with the tools to intentionally share their faith with younger generations. We recognize that, as much as church leaders might want to be incharge of everything having to do with faith, parents have a much greater influence on their children than anyone else ever will.

Parents, or more specifically the adults with whom children spend the most time, are the ones who (intentionally or accidentally) share their worldview with young people. Kids learn how the world works from their parents.

I move through every day assuming that I'll be safe, that I'll be able to get what I need at almost any time, and that I'll have access to someone who has the power and authority to change what needs to be changed in order to make my personal situation the way it should be. That's how my parents taught me to move through the world

What do you assume about the world? If you're white, and especially if you're straight and male, you very well may make similar assumptions to mine.

If you grew up in this country black, or Latino/a, or Asian, or Native, or with any skin color darker than (northern) European, you almost certainly learned something different about how the world works.

See, we learn about the world from our ancestors. I grew up trusting authorities, at least in part because my ancestors had essentially been treated fairly by the culture in which we live.

Most people who grew up in this country with darker skin than mine grew up with decades or centuries of history of being treated unfairly. That deeply-embedded family history cannot be turned around simply because the voting laws changed 50 years ago. It takes generations of everything being different before culture even begins to truly be any different.

From a priviliged white perspective, this is what Ferguson is about. Folks are looking around, seeing that what we have is broken, and demanding that things change.

I'm not a legal expert, so I can't offer an opinion about whether Officer Darren Wilson ought to be indicted.

I do know that Mr. Michael Brown was killed without an indictment or a trial or a sentencing.

Which leads me to believe that our system, our culture, our world needs to be indicted, put on trial, and (most importantly) rehabilitated.

And the place to start, perhaps, would be to start trusting one another - specifically, for white people to start trusting that when people of color talk about how they experience life in our society, they're telling the truth.

$0.02

Some thoughts on individual rights and freedoms

I grew up with a western-USAmerican mindset, where the natural inclination for a person is to do as they please, and for that person to allow others the same priviledge. It's a culture of self-reliance and of independance and of individuality - qualities that I see as virtuous. At the same time, though, they also lead toward self-centered conservatism and isolationism and a lack of concern for fellow citizens.

A sense of independant & self-reliant individualism is intimately connected to the idea of inalienable individual rights (which, most of my seven readers will recall, are deeply imbedded in the US Constitution). Those are the foundation fo western civilization, and particularly of USAmerican culture.

(Unfortunately, our societal push toward freedom in founding this great nation trampled on the personal & societal rights of millions of individuals who were part of the scores of Native (North, Central, and South) American societies. Further, our individualistic push toward the pursuit of life & liberty & happiness trampled on the personal and societal rights of Africans and their decendants who were individually and societally enslaved in order to build profit for some.)

I'm thinking about where individual rights begin and end over the past couple of days. Let me explain.

I'm traveling with my family through the United Kingdom this month. We spent a few days in London at the outset of our trip, and I was paying attention to the cyclists that are all over this city.
There were quite a few people on bikes - all kinds of people and all kinds of bicycles.

In addition to the bikes and cyclists who were all around, I also noticed London's cycling infrastructure. There are cycle lanes on almost every major street, and also on most of the intermediate streets as well. The minor streets were generally unmarked for cyclists - however, people on bikes were traveling on those just as they did on intermediate and major streets - in the midst of and alongisde cars and trucks as if bikes were traffic. What a beautiful thing.

In addition to the cycle lanes painted on many streets, I also saw that on some streets, physical barriers (cement curbs) had been installed, as if the city wants to keep people on bicycles safe. Additionally, bicycle parking seems to be readily available almost everywhere, and we walked by scores of rental bike stands.

What's the difference between London (where drivers slow down for cyclists in the road, recognizing perhaps that any delay the cyclist causes will amount to no more than 30 seconds) and Denver (where in a 25 mph zone I was buzzed by a driver who passed me when my speed was 27, and who proceeded a few minutes later (after I'd passed him at a stop) to honk and yell at me because he had to wait no longer than five seconds extra for me to get through an intersection)?

[Of course, I'm probably not giving him the benefit of the doubt, but he seemed to be self-centered and lacking in concern for the perspective of his fellow citizen.]

What's the difference? I wonder if our understanding and embrace of western individualism plays a role?

Did the driver believe that I was trampling on his right to not be delayed as he drove his truck? Does he believe that I have an individual right to ride a bicycle on the street?

Does that driver consider that my right to ride a bicycle on the street is restricted - that I ought not occupy the whole lane most of the time? And does that driver also believe that his right to drive a truck must sometimes also be restricted by my right to ride a bicycle on public streets?

Here's the thing. In a free and equal society, no ond has unrestricted rights. I have the right to freely swing my fist - but my right to swing my fist ends (is restricted at the point where) someone else's nose begins.

So I find myself facing a balancing-act sort of dilemma, particularly with regard to the "right to keep and bear arms" issue.

On the one hand, I absolutely don't want to restrict the rights that our USAmerican constitution provides - the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, do we extend that right so far that it takes away rights from other people?

Does the right to keep and bear arms extend so far as to allow individuals to bring military-style rifles into places of business? I'd like to say yes. But what if an individual who openly carries a semi-automatic rifle into a department store curtails someone's right to the pursuit of happiness? Or, what if carrying a loaded weapon into a restraunt curtails a group's right to peaceful assembly?

Say, for instance, a family's breadwinner just received a promotion, moving the family from a poor neighborhood in San Diego where there are regular gun battles between drug cartels, and where a relative was killed in crossfire. And what if they moved into a lower-middle-class neighborhood in Dallas. What if, when they're shopping for school supplies in a middle-class department store for their kids' school clothes, a group of young men come in the store walking around with pistols on their belts that look just like the guns carried by the cartels? The family is traumatized, and their pursuit of happiness is curtailed.

Who's rights are more important?

Or, for instance, what if a group of Iraq war veterans meet to discuss and work through the PTSD they're living with in the aftermath of their experience in conflict? And what if they go out to lunch together after the meeting? And what if, as they're enjoying some delicious burritos, a couple of young men walk through the doors carrying semi-automatic military-style rifles? The instincts of those veterans will kick in, and their right to peaceful assembly will be immediately curtailed.

Who's rights are more important?

These truly are genuine questions - I'd be interested in a genuine and thought-filled answers ...or at least a respectful conversation.

$0.02

Slow Down, You Move too Fast

I saw a billboard yesterday that gave me pause. Once I saw the sign, I realized that I had seen it before; but when I saw it before, it was on the wall of a grocery store instead of on a billboard.

The first time I noticed it (on the grocery store wall), I was standing in line waiting it to be my turn to pay for my groceries. I was standing in the 'I want someone else to scan my groceries' line instead of the 'scan the groceries yourself' line, when the clerk who was monitoring the self-checkout area invited me over there. She even told me she'd help me use the machines.

My response, pretty quickly, was something like “This line is fine ~ I'm not in a hurry”. She got a confused look on her face, and turned back to her work.

It was about fifteen seconds later that I saw the signs on the wall proclaiming 'Faster Checkouts' and 'Less Waiting' and 'Your Time is Valuable' ... or something like that.

Some days I don't really want to talk with anyone in the store, so I make it a point to use the self-checkout. Some days I feel like interpersonal interaction, or I don't feel like looking up the codes to all that produce, so I choose the clerk-operated line.

Sometimes I'm in a hurry and choose the quickest line; but most of the time, those 30 seconds that I save by rushing through the store don't actually matter by the time I get home (especially if I sit at the parking lot exit at a stoplight). And if I'd moved over to the quicker line, I'd have missed the opportunity to have a really pleasant conversation with the woman in line behind me.

Plus, what is it that we're all rushing so quickly to get to? Don't most of us just end up spending those extra seconds, maybe five minutes accumulated over the course of a day, surfing the internet or watching television?

I wonder if hurriedness, and its corresponding malady busy-ness, isn't a sign and manifestation of selfishness. Martin Luther pointed to the truth that the beginning of all sin is self-centeredness, or being turned in on ourselves.

When we are always rushing around, and when we're always busy, we are by default setting ourselves and our own agenda ahead of someone else's, and thereby dismissing the value of our neighbor.

Of course, I'm as guilty of this as many other people. But every so often, I remind myself to slow down by choosing the slower line at the grocery store, or by not trying to pass the slower car in the lane in front of me. 

 

Speed and busy-ness have their place … but so does slowing down and recognizing the gift of the moment instead of rushing to the next one.

$0.02

Health Care Rant

I have to say, I'm baffled by the health care conversation in our country (USAmerica) these days.  It looks like the Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue of whether the government can mandate that everyone have health insurance. 

I think we're asking the wrong question.  The essential question, the essential divide in this country that I don't hear many people talking about (and I recognize that I might not be listening in the right places) is the question of whether each person deserves to receive health care as a basic right. 

If we say 'no' ~ if we say that health care is a privilege, and not a basic right ~ then the government has no business being in the health care management business.  The extension of this position is that hospitals should not be required to provide emergency room care to individuals who are not able to pay.  The extension of this argument is that we should require everyone to pay for their care, either out of pocket or through insurance. 

In this case, everyone who is not able to afford (or chooses not to obtain) health insurance, and gets sick, will either lose all their money and be forced to the street, or will chose not to get treated and possibly die of a treatable disease. 

On the other hand, if we say 'yes' ~ if we agree that health care is a right, and that everyone deserves access to medical treatment ~ then it is incumbent on us as a society to provide medical care for everyone in a manner which does not force a choice between food and medicine, or between treatment and housing.

In this case, some will be treated unfairly.  Those of us who are healthy will end up paying more in order that those who are more unhealthy do not become worse-off because of an overwhelming financial burden.  

I, as a Christian, am forced to take the latter position.  It is immoral, and more importantly it is sinful, that we are more concerned about paying less in taxes in order to pad our own bank accounts than we are about our neighbor. 

But even from a purely capitalistic and conservative perspective, corporations providing health insurance (and care) makes no sense.  Right now, I pay for health insurance.  I also pay taxes that eventually go to care for sick and injured and homeless persons who do not have health insurance.  My taxes pay for police officers and fire departments, for social workers and hospitals who care for those without insurance. 

Right now, I'm paying for my own health care and for the health care of those who can't afford it.  But I'm making payments in two different directions ~ one, to the government for taxes; and the other, to insurance and drug companies which seem to report record profits each year. 


So, if we say that health care is not a basic right, then we as a society are saying that the wealthier are more important than the poorer ... we are saying that all people are not created equal.  

If on the other hand, we say that everyone deserves equal access to health care as a right, then the government should be in the business of providing everyone health care.  Sure, it may cost each of us a little more in taxes.  At the same time, we'll no longer need to pay for private insurance.  Plus, when society has access to health care, we end up with a healthier society ~ and that's good for everyone. 

$0.02

rambling post about a non-functional microwave

A church kitchen that I'm familiar with has, among other things, a microwave oven.  Obviously this, in itself, is unremarkable.  However, the reason I'm remarking is because, apparently, this particular microwave oven isn't working.  I make this assumption because it has a sign on the door which says something like, "Do Not Use: Microwave Smokes when in Use"

Now, church buildings have, by and large, been non-smoking for many years, so that's not the unusual part.  What grabs my attention is the fact that the microwave oven has been sitting there, on the kitchen counter, with the same sign on its door, for probably a couple weeks. 

The closest I really ever got to working in the corporate was as a temporary factory worker a long time ago; so I can only imagine that, in the corporate world, a broken microwave oven would probably be gone pretty quickly. 

I do, however, work in the church; and in the church, it seems to me that it's extremely difficult to ever get rid of anything.  Every congregation I've ever been a part of has this same issue.  If I were to take a walk around most church buildings, I imagine I'd find storage rooms and closets and file cabinets and bookshelves filled with items that haven't been used for years and that really aren't worth anything to anyone. 

Why is it that we, the church, are so reluctant to get rid of anything? 

Is it because we find value in what's old?  Maybe ~ we certainly do turn regularly to the old writings of scripture, and we often participate in rites that have been in use for many decades, if not centuries. 

Is it because we shy away from conflict?  Perhaps we're concerned that if one person gets rid of something, they'll discover later that the thing they got rid of was highly valued by someone else in the congregation. 

I think, though, that there's more going on.  It may not have always been true (and I don't know if, 150 years ago, most church buildings were as cluttered as they are now), but I think members of congregations are reluctant to throw stuff out because we don't like to take responsibility ~ which again, like most things, boils down to money.  

Here's the thing.  Our society has become so very consumer-oriented, that I think we don't even know how to talk about anything other than a contractual exchange.  What I mean is that, when I go to the movie, a semi-contractual exchange takes place. I pay my money, and the theater provides me with entertainment.  When I go to a restaurant, I exchange money for food. 

In church, though, we enter into a covenental relationship with one another.  We agree to participate in a faith life together, within a community.  There may be money involved, but money given should be as a response to the action of the divine ~ G-d's grace ~ rather than as a payment for whatever a person feels they've received. 

The trouble is that there are so few covenental relationships extant in our society.  We don't know how to talk, or think, about these other than as contractual ~ I pay money to the church, and the church provides me a religious service. 

I believe that we are so steeped in contractual capitalism that we don't know how to think differently about the covenental relationship necessary in a faith community.  And this, at least to some degree, is why there's still a non-functional microwave in the kitchen ~ because many people, deep within the depths of their being (and without realizing it) think that since they've paid, someone else should do the work of deciding and throwing away. 

I'm probably wrong, but that's what I think today.

$0.02

trust

I bought a car last week, and my interaction with the used car dealer left me a little off balance. He wasn't the stereo-typical used car dealer. He owns an auto repair shop, and sells cars off that lot. I don't think he was trying to trick me, or to take unfair advantage of me, so that's not what threw me.

It was the conversations we had about money. We had secured a loan, for which I had a reference number in an e-mail on my phone. As soon as I told him that, he seemed to waffle a little bit until he told me point-blank that he doesn't trust e-mails. So we started off the money conversation on the wrong foot. Plus, his business isn't affiliated with the credit union where I got the loan, so there was a good deal more paperwork than if we'd gone to a different dealership.

I figured out what had me off balance, though, as soon as we had the loan secured (paperwork in his hands). See, I had a sizable down payment to give him, but (since I choose not to walk around with thousands of dollars of cash in my pocket) I had to go to the bank. I told him I'd go around the corner to the bank so I could get a cashier's check for the deposit. Before I left, he asked me to write a personal check for the down payment amount (which I would get back when I returned with the bank check).

I had told him I wanted the car; I had spent an hour on the phone tracking down loan paperwork; I had written him a personal check. I had done all that, and still he was worried that I wouldn't come back with the final payment information. Bear in mind, I wasn't driving off with his car. I don't know what had happened to him in the past, but he absolutely didn't trust me.

The trouble, though, is that I think he really wanted to trust me. I think that through his actions and words he was really trying to convince me, and to convince himself, that he trusted me. But he let phrases slip that indicated otherwise:
* Upon receiving my personal check, "That's a good sign you'll come back."
* And when I turned over the bank check, "That pretty much seals the deal."

No, I think we sealed the deal when I gave him my personal check. It's not a good sign, or a 'pretty-much done deal'. In fact, to my mind we sealed the deal when I said I wanted to buy the car. He was selling, I was buying, and we'd settled on a price.

I was off-balance, I think because he didn't trust me. It seemed like he was watching me really closely to see how I'd be trying to cheat him.

Which brings me to my (probably un-answerable) question: why is it that we mistrust one another so completely?

Idealism and Realism

We need college students. College students are important to our society. Sure, we need them because in future years, they will be taking on the role of leading and managing our society. But we need them now, before they take on as significant role in leadership, social infrastructure, and the economy as they will in the future.

Here's why we need them now. We need their (I know it's cliché) youthful idealism. Society needs their extreme opinions, their firmly-held positions on the so-called right and on the so-called left. We need them to be isolated, to some degree, in the university. We need them to be financially isolated, socially isolated, and philosophically isolated. See, when they're isolated, they're able to view and talk about the world idealistically (instead of realistically). They're able to push the boundaries, to call themselves and others to radical stances and radical actions.

We need these calls from the edges, opinions from the margins. They keep the rest of us honest; they remind the rest of us that what we've come to expect, and what we experience as normal, might not be right.

We do, of course, experience personal and systemic shock whenever the idealistic meets the realistic. It's a shock when idealistic vegetarianism discovered in college meets grandma's thanksgiving dinner. It's a shock when idealistic religious expression discovered in seminary meets a real parish full of real people. It's a shock when idealistic political position meets the real world necessity for compromise, or at least civility.

In this shock, though, is where society has the opportunity to grow. The trouble though, enters in when those who are more grounded in the status quo do not listen to the idealists. If it weren't for some who were willing to listen to wisdom from the fringes, we'd still have institutionalized slavery based on skin color, and women's second-class status would be legal (to name two of the most obvious examples). And if it weren't for those on the fringes being willing to listen to wisdom from the center of society, we'd either all be vegetarian, or there would be oil wells drilled on every other square mile across the country.

The middle needs the fringes (especially those fringes we don't agree with) pushing us to be better. And the fringes need the middle, keeping us sane and civil, and reminding us that we're all in this together.

In my estimation, this is what's missing in our national political conversation these days ~ the fringes aren't willing to listen to wisdom from the center, and the center isn't willing to stand up for what's actually helpful.

$0.02